Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 29 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Renewable Energy

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What action he is taking to promote renewable energy. [153626]

Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to increase energy production from renewable resources. [153642]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government have set an ambitious target of securing 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by 2010, driven mainly by the proposed renewables obligation on all electricity suppliers. In addition, we have allocated more than £250 million over the next three years to promote new renewable energy technologies, including offshore wind, energy crops and solar voltaics. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government have also decided to introduce an order in the House that will allow non-fossil fuel obligation 3, 4 and 5 contracts to change location, so freeing up projects that have been unable to win, planning consent to transfer elsewhere and help meet our renewables target.

Mrs. Lawrence: The Minister will be aware that the tariff payments to generators of wind power change on 1 April and that sites with wind velocity as low 7.5 m a second will be viable, instead of the previous 9 m a second. Will be do everything possible to encourage wind generators to switch their attention to new sites and remove pressure from environmentally and aesthetically sensitive sites, such as those in my constituency near the Pembrokeshire coast national park?

Mr. Hain: I am well aware of the beautiful countryside in my hon. Friend's constituency—indeed, I may even

visit it with her in the next few weeks. We are anxious to ensure that renewables projects, in particular offshore and onshore wind projects, are sensitively located. I assure her that NFFO portability will encourage transfer of projects to less sensitive sites. In addition, the increased buy-out price for renewables will encourage wind farm projects to be located at lower levels. That should reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents.

Ms Drown: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey published by the Scottish Executive that shows overwhelming support for renewable energy. especially wind energy? Interestingly, there was more support in areas adjacent to existing projects. That reinforces evidence from many surveys that show that a lot of the fears that are raised before a project is installed are unfounded. Will my hon. Friend agree to have a public information campaign to emphasise the benefits of renewable energy, which is better for the environment, uses safer production methods and improves the environment for the staff who work in the area? Will he also emphasise the fact that that massively expanding sector also benefits British business.

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have made £250 million available to support wind projects, solar photovoltaics, biomass projects in better generation and other renewable energy projects that we are keen to promote. Our approach will encourage cleaner energy and environmentally more sustainable energy. I agree that public opinion is often more content with such projects when they are established. When people consider a renewables project on their doorstep. they should bear in mind the fact that it is the cleanest form of energy. Whatever planning issues may be at stake, people should not adopt a Nimby attitude to those projects.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree with the unanimous view of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that energy from waste should not be classified as renewable energy?

Mr. Hain: I read the report yesterday and was impressed with the level of analysis. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters. However, it is important that we give maximum encouragement both to the recycling of waste and to clean methods of waste disposal. New technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis allow the transformation of waste into energy in a manner that is clean and produces few, if any, emissions. I do not rule out bringing the biodegradable form of waste generation into the renewables obligation. We are studying how that might be achieved to give maximum environmental protection while ensuring that the alternative of burying waste in landfill sites is not encouraged. Indeed, we want radically to change that practice.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that this is likely to be the last trade and industry questions before Labour has to defend its record to the country, will the hon. Gentleman say how he will explain to the electorate the fact that the Government's target of reducing CO2 emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 will be missed by a mile, with Britain achieving just 8 per cent. by 2010 and CO2 emissions rising,


according to the Government's own figures? How will he explain his Department's failure to get anywhere near the target of generating 5 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2003, given that just 2.8 per cent. has been achieved so far, and most of that is hydro-electric? Is not the truth that this is a Government full of grandiose targets that no one believes will be met and with absolutely no idea of how to achieve them?

Mr. Hain: It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to complain about renewables targets when the Conservatives did virtually nothing to support renewable energy when they were in power. There is the potential for at least two more terms of Labour Government before 2010, and during that time we will drive forward the renewables programme and meet the targets. We have already achieved 2.8 per cent. of generation from renewables towards our target of 5 per cent. by 2003. Today's announcement will help us, and the recent announcement of £250 million will be a huge boost to spending on research and development and capital projects in renewable energy.

Mr. Brian White: Given that the Labour party had a strong commitment to renewables in its last manifesto, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the next Labour Government will strongly support renewables industries—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hardly a day goes by when the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) does not shout. I do not know whether he is rattling anyone else, but he is beginning to rattle me.

Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be strong support for indigenous renewables industries, especially combined heat and power programmes?

Mr. Hain: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a vibrant, expanding renewable energy industry. There is enormous potential for British businesses, with which I have had many discussions in the past few weeks, to take advantage of the fantastic opportunities that exist as part of our strategy for creating the best knowledge-based economy in Britain.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the role of the nuclear industry in helping to meet Britain's future electricity generation requirements. [153629]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The nuclear industry's role will depend on its cost compared with that of other generation options and on securing public confidence in respect of issues such as safety and the environment. The generators have said that they have no current plans for new nuclear power stations.

Mr. Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the commitment to the industry of nuclear workers in my constituency and their awareness of the industry's contribution to meeting our Kyoto target and giving us security of energy supply. In light of recent press reports

of the wish of British Energy and BNFL to investigate further investment in nuclear energy, will he say what is the Government's strategic vision for the industry? Will he support both companies' endeavours to renew our rapidly ageing stock of nuclear power stations?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the press reports about comments allegedly made by British Energy and BNFL. Both companies have denied that they have any proposals at present to begin a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Springfields, the facility in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is a major employer, and he is rightly concerned about the implications of the decline of Magnox in the next few years and its impact on his constituents. It will be another five years or so before the Magnox fuel demands at Springfields will be in decline, so we have time to work out together the new role that Springfields can play . I believe that it can remain a vibrant manufacturing facility, employing many people. I want to work with the right hon. Gentleman and BNFL to make sure that the expertise and talent at Springfields can be used in future, perhaps in a slightly different way. There is huge potential at that facility, and we have time to map out a way to ensure that it can be used to the full.

Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear industry's importance lies in the people in that industry, and that without clear and coherent policies we shall not attract into the industry the younger people we need not only to develop new generation potential but to manage safety issues, which must always be uppermost in our mind?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that public confidence in nuclear is retained, so we need to explain the benefits that can be derived from nuclear, as well as the safety measures that are in place. Nuclear accounts for 23 per cent. of electricity production; even given the projected decline, in 10 years it will still account for 18 per cent. of electricity generation in the UK. Therefore, nuclear will have a strong role to play well into the foreseeable future. We need to communicate to the young and talented people who want to know whether there is a future for the industry the clear statement that yes, there is. We want diversity of generation and nuclear electricity will continue to play a significant role in achieving that.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: We heard in answer to the previous question that the Government are way behind on their target for renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that even if the Government were to meet their renewable energy target of 5 per cent. and then 10 per cent., CO2 emissions would start to increase in the medium term because of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations? How can the Government claim to have a rational climate change policy when, according to their own figures, emissions will start to rise again? Is not the truth that the Government have no coherent policy, save for a hope that that future will never arise? Does that have something to do with the fact that the junior Minister responsible for nuclear power is a member of CND, which opposes the civil use of nuclear power? Will the Secretary of State override his junior Minister and CND and conduct a


review of nuclear power and the environment policy; or is the Government's entire climate change programme yet another sham, condemned by their own figures in their own document?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman knows that our energy policy has not changed as a result of the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. Our policy remains as it has been for the past few years an energy policy based on diversity and on sustained and secure energy production. The right hon. Gentleman appears to argue that the Government should embark on a new generation of nuclear build, but he must be aware that the two UK companies working in that sector—BNFL and British Energy—have both clearly stated that they have no plans to begin a new generation of nuclear build. Therefore, it would fall on the Government to support such a programme. The last nuclear plant built—Sizewell B, which was commissioned and Completed in 1994—cost £2 billion at 1994 prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a commitment on behalf of the Conservatives to fund a new generation of nuclear build? The figures are clear: we project a 5 per cent. reduction in nuclear by 2010 and a 10 per cent. renewables contribution. We shall benefit from the climate change programme to which we are committed. In government, the right hon. Gentleman did absolutely nothing about it.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Would my right hon. Friend care to tell us when he thinks the MOX—mixed oxide—facility at BNFL's Sellafield plant will be given permission? I realise that the responsibility is held jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the matter appears to have been lying on Ministers' desks for some time. Given that some of the problems that BNFL has encountered in recent years have been addressed and that the nuclear installations inspectorate is giving positive signals about the improvement in performance, when is the MOX facility likely to be licensed?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The nuclear installations inspectorate has said some positive things about the steps that have been taken at Sellafield in the light of the difficulties that were experienced a few months ago. My hon. Friend is right that my Department and DETR are jointly responsible. Within government, we are discussing closely the progress that we can make. I hope that shortly there will be a proposal from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that will allow us to make some speedy progress.

Business Incubation Programme

Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west. [153630]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The North West Development Agency will spend nearly £4 million over the next two years to initiate the north-west incubation programme.
Organisations in the north-west will have the opportunity to bid for the Small Business Service's £75 million business incubation fund.

Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for her Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west.
Campus Ventures, which is a Manchester-based company, is playing a leading role in the development of the programme. It recently initiated discussions with key players in the region with a view to establishing a seedcorn capital fund. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the importance of such a fund to new enterprises and encourage public and private organisations to contribute to the fund once it is established?

Ms Hewitt: I readily respond to my hon. Friend's question. Seedcorn funds of the sort that he mentioned are enormously important in helping more businesses to start up and to grow. I congratulate Jim Keaton, the chairman of Campus Ventures, and the vice-chancellors of many of the universities in the north-west, who have collaborated in different ventures, including the Manchester challenge seed fund, which was helped by the first round of university challenge funding that we provided.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on UK manufacturing industry's competitiveness. [153632]

The Minister for Trade: The climate change levy is an environmental protection measure designed to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. The levy's impact on individual businesses will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency, the energy efficiency advice and support from the new carbon trust, and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are offering an 80 per cent. discount to energy-intensive industries exposed to international competition in return for their commitment to challenging energy- saving targets.

Mr. Winterton: Has the Minister seen the report published last week by Ernst and Young, which was commissioned by the Engineering Employers Federation? Will he comment on the remarks of Nick Turner of Ernst and Young, who said:
There is no doubt that the climate change levy will penalise a number of manufacturing enterprises in the UK, particularly those that have made considerable improvements to their energy efficiency prior to the introduction of the levy."?
Is it not important that we do not have policies that damage the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of manufacturing?
Will the Minister comment also on the remarks of Martin Temple, the director-general of the EEF, who said that he believes that the levy is
one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times."?
Will the Minister reconsider the effect of the climate levy on manufacturing industry?

Mr. Caborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the levy is one element of a national climate change programme, which was published in November. Our answers to earlier questions make it clear that we want to approach energy in the most effective way and to stop damage to the environment. The levy is one of the instruments that is being used to address the Kyoto targets, with which I think the entire House agreed. We have made major concessions in discussions with organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation—I listed some of them in my main answer—and dialogue continues with them. The tax will take effect in April. It must be seen as part of the Government's attack on damage to the environment.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not the case that the Government have given many millions of pounds of relief to the British steel industry on the levy? Corus repaid the Government's generosity by giving £700 million back to its shareholders and promulgating 4,000 job losses in Wales, including 400 in Shotton steelworks in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the Shotton steelworkers went, with Corus, to see the Government to ask for the levy on steel to be lessened, my steelworkers think that that is a disgrace.

Mr. Caborn: Some of my right hon. Friend's questions about Corus should be directed at the company itself. However, the climate change levy was not a major factor in the decisions that were made, rightly or wrongly, on the present restructuring. That was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by the chairman and chief executive of Corus.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: How is it that the Department of Trade and Industry has the professed aim of helping manufacturing industry and improving competitiveness—that appears in its so-called mission statement—but in reality is so weak and ineffective that it allows the Treasury to impose a new energy tax, which will come into effect in less than two weeks, at a time when energy prices for industry are already rising fast? Will the Minister confirm that the new tax will be particularly damaging for manufacturing industry, which has already lost more than 350,000 jobs since the general election, and that it is an unwelcome additional burden on the steel industry, which is already suffering severe job losses? The damage caused by the new energy tax has been confirmed by the chairman of Corus.
Will the Minister also confirm that the tax is an extremely clumsy and inefficient way of tackling climate change, which could be dealt with much better by other means, such as emissions permit trading, and that the tax has been condemned by business groups, all of which have declared that it is ridiculously complicated and an additional stealth tax? Above all, will the DTI start to

stand up for the interests of British business instead of constantly being ignored and overridden by the tax-raising ambitions of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Caborn: I repeat what the chairman and chief executive of Corus said: the climate change levy was not a major consideration in the company's decision to restructure, as has been said at the Dispatch Box before.
The levy is part of the Government's attack on the question of damage to the environment, and of our responsibilities as a Government. The DTI has been extremely active on behalf of British industry, including manufacturing, in our discussions and dialogue with the Treasury. Because representations were made, and strongly supported by the DTI, we have a package of measures to address the concerns raised by manufacturers when we first started discussions on the climate change programme last November. We are now coming to a consensus, and when the levy starts to operate on 1 April, we shall be able to reflect and see that it is a sensible move for all the population.

Miners' Compensation

Mr. Bill Michie: What action he is taking to deliver coal health payments in the south Yorkshire area. [153634]

Ms Rosie Winterton: What action he is taking to deliver coal miners' illness compensation payments in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. [153640]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): Some 2,100 claims in the Yorkshire area have been settled in full, with the highest full settlement to date being £61,004. A further 6,200 claimants have received interim payments, the highest being £30,000. In Yorkshire alone, we have paid out £100 million in coal mining compensation. In total, the Department has paid out more than £360 million in compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger, and we continue to pay out about £1 million per working day.

Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the work that he is doing to increase the speed with which compensation is paid out. He will be aware that 139,000 cases are still waiting to be dealt with, and that more cases are still coming in than are being completed. He will also know that it will be a long time before those claims are completed. We had another meeting with IRISC this week and were given further suggestions on how to speed things up. Will he again visit IRISC to see what help he can provide in that respect?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting IRISC and I know about his close engagement with its headquarters in Sheffield. We have put in place a series of steps that are resulting in huge improvements in the speed of compensation delivery. Although my hon. Friend is right that there are about 140,000 claimants in the system, many of them have received payments and 1,000 are joining every year, which makes this the biggest compensation claim in Britain's history. He will be


encouraged to learn that we expect offers worth £440 million to be sent out in the next five or six months. That compares with £360 million in the past three years, which shows that the programme is being hugely accelerated. We are determined to deliver justice for miners and their widows.

Ms Winterton: I welcome the opening of a centre in Doncaster to deal with vibration white finger claims, but I was concerned to hear yesterday from Tommy Bird, a constituent of mine from Armthorpe. Mr. Bird has chronic bronchitis and emphysema. but even though he has had his final medical assessment, it is likely to be about 15 weeks before he gets a final offer . As I understand it, the problem lies in getting the medical assessment from Healthcall to IRISC. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to speed up that part of the process?

Mr. Hain: We will certainly consider the case of my hon. Friend's constituent. Mistakes have been made and there have been bottlenecks, but we have gradually removed such problems so that the compensation scheme is proceeding much more speedily. There should be no rigid figure of 15 weeks or any other period. We are now processing 1,000 medical assessments each week. That compares with about 500 claims per week last year, so it is clear that the process is being speeded up. I am sure that we will pay special attention to my hon. Friend's constituent's case now that she has raised it with me.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am concerned about miners' compensation in Yorkshire and Wales. I wrote to the Minister on 6 January, congratulating him on his appointment and asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the matter. Is he happy that I received a reply on 3 March saying,"Try some time later in the spring."? That is simply not good enough.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for congratulating me, but I remind him, that he has had an Adjournment debate in which I gave a full response. I am as happy to discuss any matters with him as I am with any other hon. Member. We have been working night and day to drive the programme forward in Wales, as elsewhere.[Interruption.] On Friday week, I shall open a new medical assessment centre in Ystrad Mynach, which will take forward the whole process of compensation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked the Minister a question, so he should not shout during the reply.

Mr. Hain: I remind the House that while Plaid Cymru whinges about miners' compensation we are delivering it on a scale that has never been seen in British history and that the Tories refused to deliver in their long years of power. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his decision on claimants' pension rights, and, in particular, on his decision about asthma cases in which it is shown that it a man could have contracted asthma by working in dust underground. I have no doubt whatever that such cases would have gone to court if the Conservative party had been in power. He will know

that the matter involves civil litigation and that although he has extended the claims period until mid-summer, the time bar will come down then. On the basis of the evidence that IRISC will have accumulated in calculating the claims, will he consider introducing a scheme after the time bar comes down, to ensure that people can make future claims?

Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider that. There is no reluctance on our part to pay out the money. Recently, £50 million in offers was stuck with solicitors who were unable to make progress. We want them to speed up their operations. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the hugely complex process of litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often makes the point that the Labour Government in the 1970s dealt with such claims immediately and with great speed. We have been unable to do that because of the court process. However, speed has been increased greatly, and compensation will be paid throughout the country.

Metrication

Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received concerning metrication. [153636]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Not a lot. However, several individuals have written directly to the Government or their Members of Parliament about the obligation on traders, under legislation made by a Conservative Government in 1994, to use metric weights after 31 December 1999 for the sale of loose goods.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that reply, as far it goes. The younger generation is happy and comfortable using metric measurements. However, try as I may to keep up with them, I understand "a couple of miles down the road" better than "5 km". I understand that it is a hot summer's day when the temperature is 75 deg F, but I am a bit muddled about 20 deg C. I understand a pound of butter or 8 oz of sweeties. I may be out of date, but I am comfortable with those measurements.
Does not the Minister regret the fact that the statutory instrument that he introduced last week removes the right of the retailer to offer an option? Currently, we are offered both sorts of measurements and people know where they are, no matter whether they are young or, like me, a bit of a fuddy-duddy. The statutory instrument means that we will not know what we are buying.

Dr. Howells: As far as I understand the question, I can reply that the hon. Gentleman knows that we negotiated a 10-year extension so that anyone who sells loose goods can use imperial as well as metric measurements.
It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to convince the people of his lovely county that he is more anti-European and anti-metrication than the UK Independence party—that is what he is really worried about. He has a majority of only 3,500, and the UK Independence party is pecking away at it.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend believe that the acute grasp of modern measurement that


the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) displays is one of the reasons for the Confederation of British Industry's announcement yesterday that a Tory Government would pose a threat to Britain?

Dr. Howells: Probably.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The introduction of metrication has been a confusion of European Union directives, opt-outs, derogations and statutory instruments. The final stage in that messy process was yesterday's deferred Division. A majority of Labour Members voted to end for ever the ability to display imperial measurements alongside metric ones.

Dr. Howells: indicated dissent

Mr. Duncan: Nevertheless, Lord Sainsbury gave incorrect information in the Lords debate on the matter. He claimed that supplementary measurements were already forbidden: that is not true. Will the Minister confirm for the record that the Labour party's vote has killed off imperial measurements for good? They would otherwise have been permitted in parallel. Will he also confirm that Lord Sainsbury' s comments did not reflect the truth?

Dr. Howells: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It will remain permissible until 2009 for weighing machines to be marked with imperial measurements, and for anybody to ask for a product in an imperial measure. The trader can measure it metrically if he wishes. There is nothing to prevent us from negotiating a further 10-year derogation if we choose to do that.

Universal Bank

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress has been made in agreeing a memorandum of understanding with banks concerning the universal bank. [153637]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.

Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister comment on the reports in today's edition of The Independent, and confirm that Barclays and the Halifax are resisting proposals that post office employees should be able to open accounts at their banks, and that they are concerned about the prospect of money laundering? Will the Minister also say whether the Select Committee was accurate in its estimate that the running costs of the universal bank would be in the region of £150 million a year? What element of public subsidy will be involved in that?

Mr. Johnson: We are engaged in commercial negotiations at the moment, and I will not breach the confidentiality of those negotiations. I advise the hon. Gentleman to take as much notice of the report published this morning as of the report published in the same newspaper in November, which said that the universal bank was going to hit the dust. Shortly after that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of

Scotland, HSBC, Abbey National and the Halifax had all agreed in principle to the universal bank. Since then, I visited the Alliance and Leicester Girobank in Merseyside, on 8 February. It announced that it too would join a universal bank. I had discussions with the Nationwide building society on 20 February, and it announced that it would sign up to the universal bank.
I advise Opposition Members to recognise that we have an opportunity hen to tackle financial exclusion. One hundred per cent. of the socially and financially excluded are among the 28 million people a week who visit post offices, and the universal bank will provide an exciting opportunity to move forward and, at the same time, to address the problems of branch closures and of people continuing to receive their benefits and pensions in cash across a post office counter. That is our aim. This is an exciting prospect and we aim to deliver on it.

Mr. David Kidney: Will the universal bank not bring a new income stream to sub-post offices? Will it not also result in more people holding bank accounts? Are not those both highly desirable outcomes?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would have expected Members on both sides of the House to recognise the opportunities that the proposal makes available. The universal bank concept—originally set out by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, which said that the Post Office should set up a universal bank—has moved on a stage, to the point where every bank that offers a basic bank account, a so-called PAT 14 bank account, will now make those accounts available across a post office counter. That will open up the opportunity for far more work across post office counters. It will also attack the disgraceful situation in which up to 5 million people in this country do not have bank accounts or any of the advantages that they bring.

Dr. Vincent Cable: How far have the negotiations been advanced by yesterday's report by the Competition Commission, on the first anniversary of the Cruickshank report? Specifically, does the Minister agree with the chair man of the commission that it would be appropriate and a useful source of revenue for the universal bank if there were a windfall tax on the excess profits of the banking system?

Mr. Johnson: I do not think that yesterday's report changes anything in respect of the discussions that we are having with the banks. Those are constructive, fruitful discussions. The banks have no legal obligation to sign up to universal banking services. Nevertheless, owing to the skill, wisdom and sagacity of the negotiators, they are willingly signing up to the universal banking services. We should ensure that we continue that process, finalise it shortly and be ready for 2003, when universal banking services will be launched.

Mr. Richard Page: Is the Minister aware that owing to the clumsy way in which automated credit transfer was introduced, the Government have destroyed the confidence of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in their own offices? Those offices are now closing at then record rate of nearly two a day. Even


if the Minister sorts out the muddle and confusion that surround the universal banking service, there will be precious little income for those in the post offices.
The Minister's answers have been muddled and confused over the months that we have been asking him questions about the universal banking service. Is he aware that when we sweep back to power after the next general election, we are going to cut through this confusion by introducing our own benefit card? That will enable beneficiaries to draw their money at the post offices, and enable the sub-post offices to get some income; most importantly of all, it will preserve the footfall in post offices. When the Minister goes back. to 1 Victoria street with his tail between his legs, will he put in hand our work, so that when we take over his office after the general election, we shall not have to waste any time putting in our benefit card scheme?

Mr. Johnson: Last July, the hon. Gentleman described the universal bank as flabby and unlikely; if I were a less kind person, I might say that that was a suitable description of him. He mentioned the benefit payment card, which I understand those on the Opposition Front Bench will be committed to reintroducing. The idea behind that card was well intentioned, but as I said at the time, it was a turkey of a PFI. Read the National Audit Office report: the project was three years overdue and vastly overspent. If Conservative Members would bother to look at the plans for universal balking services, they would see that the smart card—the so-called clear account—which is the post office's part of the system, does precisely what the benefit payment card would have done, except that it is a smart card rather than a swipe card, because it moves the technology forward.
I heard the leadership bid that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but I must tell Conservative Members that if we are to fight the election on the issues that he raised, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters will be on our side in implementing the PIU report; they will not support some adventurer who wants to go back and recreate the benefit payment card.

Minimum Wage

Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the impact of the minimum wage in Cleethorpes. [153638]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): At least 120,000 workers in Yorkshire and Humberside have benefited as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. The national minimum wage has also helped to close the gap between the highest and lowest earners, and to reduce the differential between men's and women's pay, both in Cleethorpes and throughout the United Kingdom. Between April 2000 and February 2001, Inland Revenue enforcement officers visited 348 employers in the Inland Revenue's northern region, which includes Cleethorpes, and identified about £240,000 in underpayments for workers in that region.

Shona McIsaac: I represent a part of the world in which low pay, such as £1 an hour piecework rates, was rife. The national minimum wage, and the increase in it that will be made later this year, has given a real boost to

eliminating poverty pay in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. My hon. Friend mentioned cases of employers who do not meet their obligations. That is probably the tip of the iceberg in some parts of the country. What rights do workers have to report employers who may not be paying the national minimum wage, or who may alter their terms and conditions of employment to get round the requirement to pay the minimum wage?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The second report of the Low Pay Commission last year examined enforcement, and its authors were pleased, by and large, with the way it was operating. We have 14 teams of Inland Revenue officers around the country, dedicated to national minimum wage issues. Thanks to the Employment Relations Act 1999, they have access to returns for tax, national insurance and working families tax credit. The Low Pay Commission will re-examine the subject, and its conclusions will be included in volume 2 of its third report, which will be published in May.
If workers are scared of their employers, and scared to enforce their rights, they have only to ring the helpline. The rest will be done for them; they need have no further involvement. Enforcement officers will ensure that the employer complies—and so far, the enforcement officers have recovered £4 million in wages for people who had been denied their rights under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I was in a nursing home recently—[Interruption.] I was only visiting. The nursing home was in my constituency, but only a couple of miles from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and the people there said that the minimum wage had had a severe impact on their business. Although we all want people to receive decent wages, is the Minister conducting a survey of areas of traditionally high unemployment and low wages, such as Humberside and north Lincolnshire? The area contains his own constituency, and he knows it well. The issue is serious, and I am sure that the Minister would not want to increase unemployment in the area. What impact studies is he conducting, especially into the TUC's demands for a minimum wage as high as £4.50 or even £5 an hour?

Mr. Johnson: The Low Pay Commission is an example of social partnership in action, and may not be too popular among Conservative Members. It was established to carry out the type of analysis that the hon. Gentleman has described.
The sector mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has been a cause of concern in respect of the effect of the national minimum wage. What—for want of a better term—one could call social care employees have had a major input to the commission's deliberations. Indeed, the commission's second report found that 14 per cent. of establishments in the sector had experienced lower staff turnover since the introduction of the national minimum wage, that 18 per cent. reported higher staff motivation, and that 44 per cent. had increased investment in training and development.
The matter is important. This Government introduced the national minimum wage, and the level at which it is set obviously has to take cognisance of the points raised by the


hon. Gentleman. That is why it is important that the process should be careful and steady, and that it be overseen by the Low Pay Commission. Anyone who reads the commission's reports will see that it conducts a thorough analysis of points such as the hon. Gentleman raised.

Corus

Mr. Huw Edwards: What support his Department plans to give to former employees of Corus affected by its decision to restructure steel production in the UK. [153639]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, even at this late stage the Government would urge Corus to reconsider its proposal. Should it proceed, we will work with the National Assembly for Wales, local agencies and other Government Departments to ensure that the best and most appropriate help is provided for the individuals and communities affected.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for the efforts made by his Department and the National Assembly for Wales to support the Corus steelworkers if they are made redundant. However, does not he agree that the prime responsibility remains with Corus to restructure its plans and save the jobs at Llanwern, Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn? Does he share the astonishment felt by members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when Sir Brian Moffat confessed, while giving evidence, that he did not know whether the Bryngwyn works was profitable or not but that he was closing it anyway?

Mr. Byer: Once we were able to reflect on the decision announced by Corus, it was clear that the company was adopting a short-term approach to the particular trading difficulties that it was experiencing. There is no getting away from the fact that it has been a difficult period for Corus. The House will understand that the company had to act to remedy the losses that it was incurring. The great concern for my hon. Friend, and many others, was that the company failed to adopt an approach guaranteeing a long-term future for steel.
I have no doubt that steel is an important industry for the United Kingdom, and will remain so. The Government still want to work constructively with Corus and the trade unions to find a better way forward. We could have a plan for steel that would overcome the difficulties that individuals and communities will face if Corus goes ahead with the programme that it has proposed.

Mr. James Clappison: Will the introduction of the climate change levy next month result in a net cost to the steel industry?

Mr. Byers: What I can do is repeat the comments made by Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman and chief executive of Corus. His evidence to the Select Committee was very clear. He said that the introduction of the climate change levy made no difference whatever to the proposals being put forward by the company.

Mr. Andrew Miller: There is nothing new about the conduct of the company. The

company's barrister admitted in a recent employment appeal tribunal that the company gave false information to employees during the closure of the H.H. Robertson firm in my constituency. Given the role of his Department, and the possible involvement of the Serious Fraud Office, will my right hon. Friend look again at the conduct of British Steel—now Corus—during that closure?

Mr. Byers: I will agree to do that.

Minimum Wage

Mr. Chris Pond: What assessment he has made of the effects of raising the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [153641]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen. Byers): The Low Pay Commission has made a thorough assessment of the likely impact of raising the minimum wage to £4.10 an hour. Its report shows just how successful the policy has been, with nearly 1.5 million workers taken out of poverty pay, and no adverse impact on levels of employment.

Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that he and the Low Pay Commission will be looking at the youth rate before this latest increase Comes into effect? Does he agree that although some propose that all small firms should be exempted from having to pay the minimum wage, most firms consider that the minimum wage makes good business sense? Could that be one of the reasons why the Confederation of British Industry said this week that
most businesses would take their hat off to this Government",
and warned against the effect of another Tory Government, a view that I am sure is shared by most low-paid workers?

Mr. Byers: I think that the fact that we have been able to create economic stability which allows business to plan ahead with confidence is the motive behind the CBI's warm endorsement. On the national minimum wage, the Low Pay Commission will be recommending the youth rate later in May. We expect it to report on that issue then.
Many Conservative Members opposed the national minimum wage and continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Bexley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is a good example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bromley".] The right hon. Gentleman changes his constituency so often that I have difficulty keeping track. He, however, is a true believer. Conservative Front Benchers do not believe in the national minimum wage, either. The public know that, because the Conservatives have continually opposed it. The Government are committed to it; we are proud to have introduced it. That is why it is going up to £4.10 in October and to £4.20 in October the following year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman been spending any of his March advertising budget on promoting the national minimum wage? Can he confirm that more than £8 million has been spent in March by his Department? Can he also confirm that the information in the advertisement on the four weeks' minimum holiday is incorrect, because the person featured


in that advertisement is a partner in a firm, so the minimum wage and the four weeks' minimum holiday do not apply?

Mr. Byers: I am not sure that we are spending any money advertising the national minimum wage in March. If the hon. Gentleman is recommending that we should, I would be more than happy to consider it.
We are, of course, advertising the fact that as a result of measures introduced by this Government, everybody is now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday a year. That would be taken away by the Conservative party. We make no apology for advertising the fact that people in work now have decent minimum standards as a result of the measures that we have introduced.

Rural Post Offices

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the rural post office network. [153643]

The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): By accepting all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report on the future of the post office network, the Government have demonstrated their continuing commitment to maintenance of a national network. We are working closely with the Post Office, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other stakeholders to implement the PIU recommendations. These measures are designed to modernise and improve post office services and to strengthen confidence in the future of the network. We have also established a new fund to support initiatives by volunteer or community groups to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where the traditional post office is closing.
The Post Office has accepted a formal requirement, placed on it by the Government, to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.

Miss McIntosh: The Minister will be aware of my keen interest in this matter. I am grateful for the briefing given to me by the Leeds regional office. That briefing proved that the rural post office network is virtually non-existent. It is hopelessly inadequate. The whole network is geared to urban and suburban post offices. Does the Minister accept that the Government have failed rural post offices and the countryside?

Mr. Johnson: I realise that the hon. Lady takes an interest in that matter, but I am bemused by her response following a briefing. Rural closures are 20 per cent. down on the same period last year—[Interruption.] That is the first time there has been a reduction of any sort in the past 18 years. Many of the initiatives that we announced last month resulted from suggestions made by rural sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. So we are providing protection through Government subsidy—as specified in the Postal Services Act 2000. We have abolished the 25 per cent. of salary up-front fee that new sub-postmasters had to pay when they first took over a new post office—that was introduced by the previous Government in 1989 and we have waived the fee—and set up a £2 million fund to allow parish councils and local communities to meet the capital costs of opening a village hall as a post office. We predict that that will lead to the reopening of 200 offices that cannot at present find a location.
The hon. Lady asked a genuine question and has a genuine interest, but we should have a better dialogue on the subject because the rural part of the network is doing better than the rest.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House please give us the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 MARCH—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Second Reading of Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Intelligence Agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
Consideration in Committee followed by remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of April will be as follows:
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Debate on renewable energy.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March, there will be a debate relating to the support scheme for olive oil in European Standing Committee A.
On Wednesday 28 March, there will be a debate relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 4 April, there will be a debate relating to community postal services in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report
[Wednesday 28 March: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 9431/00, Support scheme for olive oil. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xxviii (1999–2000).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10802/00, Waste electrical and electronic equipment. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-i (2000–01) and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000).
Wednesday 4 April: European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10544/00, Community postal services. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-iv (2000–01) and HC 23-xxviii (1999–2000).]

Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business and congratulate her on retaining

her composure, particularly as she read out the latter dates. I want to be helpful to the right hon. Lady today. I am afraid that she has been rather remiss as it is only three weeks until Maundy Thursday. It must either have slipped her mind, or she has been too busy with other matters, but we have not yet had the dates of the Easter recess. I am sure that that is only an oversight. Clearly, hon. Members who have serious matters with which to deal in their constituencies would like to make arrangements for the recess. I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady could give us some indication of its length this year.
In the event—I know that this is hypothetical, but I am trying to help the Leader of the House to foresee the sort of errors and omissions that I have just identified—of a general election [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, perhaps. In the event of an election in the next few weeks, will the right hon. Lady share with the House the Government's preparations for how the foot and mouth crisis will be dealt with at ministerial level during the campaign? She will be aware that there are strict codes of conduct on how Ministers handle matters and make announcements. Have the Government considered how they would make announcements about foot and mouth disease and keep people properly informed of developments during a general election campaign, in particular as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the crisis is likely to continue for several months?
Before the Easter recess, will there be time for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on Macedonia, which is a matter that concerns many hon. Members? We have not yet heard from him on the subject. In the past two weeks we have seen quite a flurry of Bills scheduled for Second Reading. Can the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill?
Finally, this week the Government announced an important White Paper on learning disability, which I welcome although I have tabled a couple of specific questions on concerns that I have. Interestingly, the White Paper was launched at Fulham football ground, which is owned by Mr. Al Fayed. Is this to be the procedure in future? Clearly, the Government have abandoned making such important announcements on the Floor of the House. Could we have a ballot, so that Members like me with excellent football grounds, such as Ladysmead in Tiverton, without any patronage from anybody whom anyone would have heard of, could host the launch of important papers in our constituency? Perhaps we could have a weekly ballot, so that we could all share in this bonhomie which the Government have introduced.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that a reminder might be helpful and I appreciate the courtesy with which she made her point, but, no, the Easter recess had not slipped my mind. In fact, I was discussing it only this morning. I understand her point about the notice that the House likes to have about the length of the recess. All I can say is what I usually say on these matters, which is that it is subject to the progress of business. [Laughter.] When the Government have had a chance further to assess the progress of our legislative programme, I will share our thoughts with the House as soon as I can.
The hon. Lady asked about preparations for the continued handling of the foot and mouth crisis. As she will be aware, if a general election were called, Ministers


do not cease to be Ministers. They continue to carry out their duties. She raised the issue of the code of conduct. My recollection is and my impression has always been—although this will be a matter of discussion, should a general election be called—that what is intended is to ensure that the holding of a ministerial post does not lead either to controversial party political decisions being taken which might bind a subsequent Government unfortunately or to exploitation for party political advantage.
As Members on both sides of the House are striving to be responsible about this serious crisis and, although occasionally there have been some differences of view, both the Government and the Opposition take the crisis in the countryside seriously, so that seems to me to be almost the last area in which difficulties of the kind which the hon. Lady identified might be likely to arise. If, however, such a circumstance develops, it will undoubtedly be a matter for discussion and careful consideration in the relevant Departments.
I understand the hon. Lady's remarks about Macedonia. She will know that it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, when it will be possible for Members to raise the issue She asked about the legislative programme in general. Business is coming back from the Lords and returning to the Floor of the House. That is true for all legislation in the pipeline, including the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, and other issues on which the Government have proposals to put before the House.
The hon. Lady lost me on her final point about the learning disability White Paper. I am not sure what the relevance was of her careful point about Mr. Al Fayed. I am sure that there is a delightful football ground in her constituency. Indeed, there is a delightful one in mine—

Mr. John Bercow: The Baseball Ground.

Mrs. Beckett: No, not the Baseball Ground. The hon. Gentleman is out of date. We have a brand new football stadium, Pride Park, on which we hope to hold an international later this year, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see it on television.
Despite the many attractions of different football grounds in different parts of the country, the germ of the hon. Lady's charge was that the White Paper had not been announced to the House. That is incorrect. My right hon. Friend launched it properly through a written statement to the House. The hon. Lady will know that it is not always possible to fit in the many issues on which Members might seek statements, not least because, perfectly rightly, so many statements have been sought on different aspects of the present difficulties in the countryside.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I repeat the request for a debate on Macedonia? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious situation that is developing there; the Kosovo Liberation Army is attempting an insurrection from Kosovo. Macedonia has been an oasis of peace in the troubled former Yugoslavia and the, Albanian minority share in government and in all the institutions of state. They are in a terrible position as the militants take over. Greece, Bulgaria and other surrounding countries could be drawn into the conflict unless we act quickly. A debate is long overdue.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters and pursues them with great

diligence. The request from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was for a statement; my hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I understand that they both seek to make the same point—the issue should be aired. I understand and sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend. She will know that the Government unreservedly condemn the violence that has been taking place in Macedonia. We are fully supportive of the Macedonian Government. We recognise and want to support the efforts made in Macedonia to maintain plurality of representation. I can say to my hon. Friend only what I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, however: there will be an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday. Obviously, there may be opportunities after that for my hon. Friend to press for a debate, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House note the apparent suggestion made by the Conservative spokesperson that Easter should be postponed? May I suggest that an authority higher even than the Lord President of the Council would be necessary for that?
The Leader of the House will have noted that the Minister for Transport in the other place, Lord Macdonald, announced that, next Thursday, he would make a statement on the progress of the public-private partnership for the National Air Traffic Services. May we have an explicit reassurance from the right hon. Lady today that we, too, will receive that statement next Thursday, and that there will be an opportunity to debate it?
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we have received no statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security about the considerable problems facing families in the areas hardest hit by the foot and mouth crisis. We have had a great deal of sympathy and heard many words from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for the Environment, who is responsible for the taskforce. My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself receive many representations—as, I am sure, do Members on both sides of the House—from families who cannot obtain assistance from the Benefits Agency at present, especially if no children are involved. I was in touch with the Benefits Agency earlier; no crisis loans are available in many circumstances for many of the hardest-hit families—be it in agriculture itself or in tourism and ancillary industries. May we have an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security on the steps to be taken by the Benefits Agency and on the introduction of flexibility in the system to cater for the problem?
I especially draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that at least one regional newspaper, The Western Morning News, today felt it necessary to launch its own special relief fund to assist those families. It is organising "green welly day" on 30 March. Although many of us will support that, it really should not be left to the media to take such steps. Surely the national welfare state system should be providing the safety net for those families.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) meant to ask that Easter should be postponed, but I admit that


one sometimes receives the distinct impression from the Conservative Benches that the mood is "Stop the world, we want to get off".
The hon. Gentleman asks about a statement to be made by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald. I was not aware of the announcement that had been made in the other Chamber, but I think that the statement will be made in fulfilment of an undertaking given by Lord Macdonald during debates in that House. Of course, we have held many extensive, thorough and well-attended debates on the matter in this place.
The hon. Gentleman asks about social security payments, especially with regard to the problems faced by families as a result of the impact of the foot and mouth crisis. Obviously, I take on board his remarks and will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, although I do not promise at present that my right hon. Friend will make a statement. However, if I heard the hon. Gentleman's final remarks correctly, he said that support for the families, and so on, should not be left to the media—and, of course, it is not. As I am sure that he and the House acknowledges, the Government are already making available hundreds of millions of pounds in a variety of ways, and we have said that we will continue to do what we can to tackle the impact of the crisis.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the Senior Salaries Review Body report on the office costs allowance? She will know that Members on both sides of the House and their staff have been waiting anxiously for that report. It is a very good one and goes some way to redress some of the difficulties that many hon. Members—and, more importantly, our staff, who are very loyal and dedicated—have with resources and the way in which we can finance them. Will some time be made available in the next couple of weeks to debate that very important issue?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the review body's report, but I would slightly take issue with him because he suggests that all hon. Members are aware of it. Not all hon. Members have followed such matters with the assiduity of my hon. Friend, who has long been a very effective campaigner on behalf of Members' staff. As the report was published less than a week ago, many Members may well not yet have had time to study and assimilate its contents, but, of course, I understand, and take very seriously, the point that he makes. The way in which the staff of the House and Members' staff work is what makes the House work, and most hon. Members recognise the debt that they owe to their staff, but I am not sure that they are yet ready to debate an issue that has been on the table for only a few days.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Leader of the House find time very soon for an urgent debate on the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to the report on Hollis Industries and the former Paymaster General, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has claimed that he was not legally able to publish the contents of the report, because it was carried out under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985?

Section 449, however, explicitly states that he may publish the information with the company's permission and that, even without that permission, he may publish it if doing so helps a public authority, designed by him, to fulfil its obligations. So what possible grounds are there for the Secretary of State to sue people who are making it clear that he held back that report and did not ask the former Paymaster General to come to the House to put the record right about the payment that he had received from Robert Maxwell? If he did not read the report and handed over the decisions to officials, what on earth is he there for?

Mrs. Beckett: That is a disgraceful remark from the right hon. Gentleman. I have not had the chance to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the matter, but I understand that he was advised, by the permanent secretary at the Department, that it should be dealt with by others, not by himself. Under those circumstances, it is quite disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to say that my right hon. Friend should have insisted on dealing with the matter himself. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would have had much more to say about it, and done so much more fervently, if my right hon. Friend had insisted on overruling the advice of his permanent secretary.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the Standards and Privileges Committee will publish its report on amendments to the code of conduct tomorrow. Will she make time for a debate on those very important matters before the Easter recess, when many Opposition Members will be able to go on indefinite holiday, because there is a lot of misrepresentation in the press about the rules—indeed, there is some confusion in the House about them?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware that the Committee intended to publish its report tomorrow, and the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Obviously, I shall. as always, take the report very seriously. I agree with my hon Friend's observations about the importance of the House carefully considering those matters, and I take heed of his request, but I cannot undertake to find time to debate the report in the next two weeks. However, if the report appears tomorrow, it will form part of the portfolio of matters that the House is being asked to consider.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Many Members wish to ask a question of the Leader of the House and only a limited amount of time is available in view of other business. Too much argument is creeping into the questions, so I ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 170 Members have signed early-day motion 3 in my name?
[That this House welcomes the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on complementary and alternative medicine; notes the widespread and increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine in the UK; supports improved


regulatory structures and the development of single voluntary regulatory bodies for complementary and alternative medicine professions; encourages conventional healthcare professions to develop clear guidelines on competence and training in complementary and alternative medicine disciplines; welcomes the recommendation that the NHS Research and Development Directorate and the Medical Research Council should allocate research funding to develop centres of excellence for conducting complementary and alternative medicine research; supports the provision of better information for the public on what works and what is safe; and urges complementary and alternative medicine practitioners, GPs and other health care professionals to exchange information and work together to provide an integrated system of healthcare which puts patients' needs first.]
It broadly supports the Lords report on complementary and alternative medicine. Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny the rumours that the Government are about to publish their response to that report tomorrow or perhaps on Monday? Does she recognise the urgency of that response given that the recommendations on research—particularly that into homeopathy—have a bearing on the foot and mouth crisis? There is very strong anecdotal evidence that a remedy called borax can stop animals getting the disease. It is urgent that research is commissioned.

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the great and serious interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in these matters. Again, I am not aware of the imminent publication to which he refers, but the recommendations that have been made are being considered carefully. I believe that a response is likely, but I am not aware of the precise time scale. I understand his point and will add it to the list of requests, but I cannot undertake to grant his request at the moment.

Mr. Michael Clapham: May I refer to early-day motion 231, which stands in my name?
[That this House is extremely concerned to learn that thousands of asbestos related disease sufferers and other industrial injury victims may be unable to claim compensation because the Iron Trades Insurers hived off the company's pre-1990 liabilities into a separate company registered as Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd that recently went into voluntary liquidation, suggesting that it may well have been launched with inadequate resources; and calls on the insurance industry to give an undertaking that it will settle all current claims not covered by the company's asses as well as those which arise in the future.]
That motion and early-day motions 355 and 450, which also stand in my name, draw attention to the Iron Trades Holdings insurance scandal in which that company dumped its liabilities in Chester Street Holdings, leaving it with insufficient assets. In fact, the liquidator's initial report is that the assets represent only 5 per cent. of liabilities. If my right hon. Friend cannot provide me with a date for a debate on the insurance industry, will she draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need for the insurance industry to provide the certainty that all the victims of

Iron Trades Holdings will receive their compensation in full? There is also a need for an independent inquiry into the scandal.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend and others have run on this matter. I understand and share their concerns that victims of such serious diseases should receive the compensation that is their due fairly and speedily. I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, because my hon. Friend is right to suspect that I cannot find time for a debate on the subject in the near future. It is my understanding that the Policyholders Protection Board will deal with and meet the claims for compensation, but I will draw all my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Chancellor.

Sir George Young: Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister said that he would give serious consideration to the case for postponing the local elections. As the Leader of the House has announced no such legislation, would the House be right to conclude that the local elections will go ahead as planned?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I announced the business for the coming week and the provisional business for the following week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said entirely properly that we are listening to the important representations that the Government are receiving on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that those representations are not all one way and that the tourism industry has expressed increasingly strong concerns. The Government will have to consider the matter seriously, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, in peacetime, no Government have suspended local elections except for what some might regard as the unfortunate precedent when the noble Lady Thatcher suspended local elections when she intended to abolish the authority in question.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the educational implications of the case of Marjorie Evans, my constituent who was suspended as a head teacher for 18 months and has now returned to school with no evidence having been found against her? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case raises a number of issues that relate to the way in which teachers deal with disruptive pupils and the way in which head teachers and teachers are disciplined?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point that raises concerns that are shared across the House. Although, like the whole House, I am aware of the case, I admit that it had not struck me that it had dragged on for 18 months. I strongly share my hon. Friend's view that that can only be damaging to all concerned. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but he might consider the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall. However, I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be useful to let the House know that the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs and


on which I serve, is concerned about programming? Without breaching any confidentiality, can she confirm that the Committee is considering that issue?

Mrs. Beckett: The House might like to know that. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, the Committee shares some of the concerns identified. We recognise that there have been some successes, but also some problems. The Committee is considering that. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not prejudge those discussions.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on television programme funding? Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called "Seven Days that Shook Britain". Although it was good, there were sinister and worrying undertones about the way in which it was produced. Cameras were placed in the homes of the main operators of the dispute before and during it and bugged telephone conversations were broadcast. I am concerned that funding might be received from companies to promote a dispute purely for the benefit of television.

Mrs. Beckett: I could not see that programme, but I heard that it was going to be shown. I was not aware that those who were engaged in the filming were party to the likelihood of a dispute before it occurred. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter. Perhaps he will find an opportunity to raise it in questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on Monday.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will she reconsider the SSRB report, which specifically states that the recommendation on computers and staff should be implemented before the next general election? Some 600 people might be employed by new Members and computer equipment worth hundreds of thousands of pounds—perhaps even £1 million—might legitimately be bought under the old system and transferred to them. However, we are planning to provide that equipment directly and centrally from public funds. Even if the right hon. Lady does not deal with the salary increases of Members, which is always controversial, I urge her to table a motion for debate next week or the week after so that the necessary arrangement is in place in case the Prime Minister decides to go to the country.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. He has long taken a great interest in the work of the Information Committee, which has given evidence several times to the review body. I must admit that I had forgotten that important aspect of the report. The body suggested, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gives, that the decisions should, if possible, be taken before a general election. He is right to make it public that hon. Members should take account of the possibility that there might be some changes in the structure of IT provision. I cannot undertake to do what

he asks, but I shall consider his request. In general, I am reluctant to separate aspects of a review body report, but he makes an important point.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that residents in tower blocks, such as my constituents in Little London, who regularly find drug dealers in the doorways and strangers on the stairwells, feel insecure in their homes? Will it be possible to find time for a debate en ways in which targeted help from Government might support local residents, housing managers, local authorities and the police in trying to tackle that serious problem?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I think that we are all conscious of the difficulties faced by people in the circumstances that he describes, and concern for those who find themselves so placed is widely shared throughout the House. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who, as he will know, is doing what he can with Ministers in other Departments to promote imaginative and cross-departmental programmes to produce exactly the kind of practical help to which he refers.

Mr. Michael Howard: The right hon. Lady may be aware that some three weeks ago I was fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on the state of the national health service in east Kent, to which the Minister concerned gave a characteristically complacent reply. Yesterday, it became known that East Kent Hospitals NHS trust had commissioned its own report, which concluded, in respect of accident and emergency facilities:
It is remarkable that no major clinical catastrophe has occurred in recent times arising directly out of the clinical environment within which staff are operating.
In view of that direct rebuttal of the Minister's response, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and make a statement on the current state of crisis in east Kent's hospitals?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituents. I was not aware of the report to which he referred, but clearly it makes serious points. I am aware that there is long-standing concern about hospital provision in east Kent because I used to get letters about it before the general' election. I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement or to find time for a debate in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw the report to his attention.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House has already been asked twice about the need for the Government to make an early response to the Senior Salaries Review Body, but I want to press her on the matter. Apart from anything else, arranging for the House of Commons to put in place new systems during a dissolution would be a massive advantage, enabling the new Parliament to start in an efficient, professional and organised way. Will the


Government be able to make a public response to the package of measures in the near future, and how long does the right hon. Lady think it will be before they decide whether to bring those measures to the House before the election?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot add anything further to what I have already said about timing, but I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. From my understanding of the report, I do not think that we should nurture the illusion that implementing the proposals would be easy and speedy, and that if there were a general election the whole IT system in the House would be transformed during the dissolution. The SSRB makes the point that there is a lot of work to be done and a new framework to be established, but of course I accept the point that Members elected to a new Parliament would need to know that a new system might be introduced.

Mr. John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time. on the conditions at Winson Green jail in Birmingham, which have been described by the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, as some of the worst that he has ever seen? Given that the inspection of the prison found soiled mattresses, unemptied buckets and prisoners who were allowed out on association for only five hours a week, does the right hon. Lady agree that the fact of a £860,000 budget cut at the prison and no fewer than 300 recommendations for urgent reform makes it essential that we should have a proper debate on conditions that by any standard should be regarded as totally unacceptable in a civilised society?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am aware of the chief inspector's report, although from memory I believe that changes were made to the demands that were initially made of the prison for reductions in the budget. I seem to recall having seen a response from the Director-General of the Prison Service that made points about the way in which resources could be better used at the prison. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but I undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the fact that concern about the matter has been expressed in the House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Barnsley. West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) about Iron Trades Holdings Ltd. and Chester Street Holdings Ltd.? I have a constituent, Mr. Donald McCreery, who is dying of asbestos-induced lung cancer: his prognosis is desperate—he will be dead within a very few months. He was awarded more than £100,000 in court as a result of contracting his illness following his employment, yet those two organisations have behaved in what I would describe as a fraudulent, dishonest and disgraceful fashion—maladministration is an understatement. Could the appropriate Minister come to the House to make a statement about what action the House can take in respect of the insurance industry, which is suffering as a result of that dreadful case, and what it can do to help those who deserve compensation?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. The whole House will sympathise with his

constituent and the concern the hon. Gentleman expresses on his constituent's behalf. He asks what the House can do to draw attention to the issue, but, in a sense, he has already done that by raising it with me. I certainly undertake to draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who I am sure are as anxious as he is to bring such matters to a speedy resolution.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May we please have an urgent debate on the quality of the advice available to the Prime Minister? I saw the Prime Minister on television yesterday saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had been "cleared" by the Standards and Privileges Committee in the matter of the complaints made against the hon. Gentleman, yet my reading of the report tells me that while eight complaints were indeed "Not upheld", eight were "Not completed" and one was "Upheld." The report also states:
we have not found answers to all outstanding questions
It strikes me that, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that his hon. Friend had been cleared, either he is receiving extremely poor advice from people who have read the report, or he somehow failed to understand the report himself. One way or another, we need a debate to winkle out whether the Prime Minister is badly advised or dyslexic.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was not here last week when some of those issues were raised. I can only repeat what I said on that occasion. It is extremely important that the House has proper systems to ensure that there is no corruption, or that if there is, it is discovered and stamped out. However, it is also important to remember that every Member of Parliament is vulnerable to frivolous accusations, whether made for reasons of personal spite or political advantage. The House should treat such matters with great seriousness and care.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I welcome the debate that we are to have on Monday on the Adoption and Children Bill? The measure will command support throughout the House. Why have the Government changed their mind? I understood that the Bill was to have been produced in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny. What has led to the change in the Government's plan?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome for the Bill. I do not think that there was any recent decision to publish the Bill specifically in draft. As I have said before, the Government are mindful of the fact that this area of legislation is complex and in need of thorough overhaul, and that it involves difficult and sensitive issues on which there is no right answer, so the balance of decisions and the handling of legislation will always be important. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a recent change of approach to the matter.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the fourth anniversary, more or less, of the publication of the Labour party's manifesto to modernise the London underground by means of a public-private partnership is to be celebrated by a strike, which will cause still further inconvenience to many long-suffering users of the service? Is she further aware that on 1 February she promised that she would make it


known as soon as a constructive end had been reached to the dialogue on the public-private partnership? What has gone wrong? Was the pledge fraudulent, or was there a glitch between the mayoralty, the Government and Mr. Kiley? The travelling public need to know.

Mrs. Beckett: I wish that Members would be more cautious about the way in which they fling around words such as "fraudulent".
Serious and detailed negotiations are continuing between the Government, Mr. Kiley and the mayor. I understand that the mayor has said recently that he is optimistic about progress. The Government are more than keen to see a resolution of the matter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday that he is willing to consider representations on the propriety of holding local and other elections on 3 May. Would it not be a good way to inform the Prime Minister to have a debate on the subject next week? It would enable us to express our anxieties about, for example, farmers who are candidates or who wish to work in support of individual candidates, but are either confined to their farms or are in exclusion zones, and will thus be denied the opportunity to participate? All those affected should have the right to receive an application for a postal vote, so that they will not be deprived of the franchise?

Mrs. Beckett: Under legislation that the Government recently put on the statute book, everyone has the right to a postal vote. Although that is not why the change was made, undoubtedly the right to such a vote is beneficial in present circumstances. I can only repeat what I said earlier. Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is considering extremely carefully the representations that he is receiving on this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the advice to the farming community, as I understand it, is that provided proper and sensible precautions are taken, people are free to move from their farms. I remind him that the Government are receiving substantial and concerned representations, not least from the tourist industry and other businesses about the impact that the handling of the issue is already having on the economy as a whole. There is great concern in that industry and other businesses that the Government should not postpone local elections. There are weighty arguments on both sides.

Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady may be aware that my constituency resides under the approach flight path of Manchester airport. The airport is a great asset to the area, but many of my constituents suffer from aircraft noise, especially when planes stray from the designated flight path.
The right hon. Lady may also be aware that I have raised this matter throughout this Parliament, in the knowledge that Ministers, in letters to me, have made it clear that they would favour the introduction of regulations to allow airports such as Manchester to have the statutory power to fine airlines whose aircraft stray.
Will she explain why the matter has not been brought before the House during this Parliament, despite Government support for the idea?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not armed with an off-the-cuff response. I think that the entire House understands the position facing the public and Members such as the hon. Gentleman whose constituencies contain airports. He will know that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has introduced a substantial amount of business during this Parliament. His proposal might not have found its way to the top of the Department's agenda, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Jack: Conservative Members know that the nation, is over-taxed. It is sad, therefore, that in the next two weeks of business, the Leader of the House has not been able to announce the Second Reading of a Finance Bill. Has she considered the fact that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which enables the Government to raise revenue, is time-limited? If we do not have a Finance Bill soon, the Government will lose their power to raise a large amount of wholly unnecessary tax on the nation.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are well aware of the need to introduce the Finance Bill; no doubt, the Treasury will announce when it hopes to be able do so in due course. The right hon. Gentleman may claim that the country is over-taxed, but, within the memory of ever Member, the Government have lowered rates for personal taxation and business taxation.
I understand that the shadow Chancellor made some proposals today whereby, if for some extraordinary reason the Conservatives were elected, they propose to do what they never managed to do during their last period in government—change the way in which the top rate of tax bites. I am also aware that the shadow Chancellor is quoted as having said that he did not choose to specialise in maths at school, and that it was not one of his favourite subjects. All that I can say is that it shows.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Leader of the House said that Bills are already coming back from the other place. We have one of the lightest legislative programmes in recent history and Bills have been rigidly timetabled. Assuming for a moment that the Government do not hold an election because of the foot and mouth crisis, will the Leader of the House share with us her plans for the Session until next October? The Government are concerned primarily with the good workings of Parliament, not general elections, popularity and things like that. I know that the Leader of the House will have a wallchart in her office showing how Bills will progress through Parliament in the coming months. Will she assure the House that there is work for us to do until next October?

Mrs. Beckett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that with absolute confidence. I try very hard to educate Opposition Members to check their statistics before they repeatedly make assertions. In the previous Session, they asserted that the legislative programme was the heaviest in history, which was rubbish. Now the tune seems to


have changed and we have the lightest legislative programme in history, which is also rubbish. We have a perfectly normal and adequate legislative programme, which we believe can be well managed in the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have plenty of business to keep us going until next auumn.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill before Easter to amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, thus legitimising millions of pounds worth of Labour election literature that is currently illegal because it has an illegal imprint?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that concerns have been expressed, although my impression is that those who would have the biggest bill if that goes wrong would be the Conservatives.

Mr. Keith Simpson: No, it would be you.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is being optimistic. I am aware that concerns have been expressed and the Government are looking at the matter to see what, if anything, needs to be done.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It has been estimated that the foot and mouth crisis will cost the economy more than £9 billion in the coming year. That loss will fall disproportionately on rural businesses and country towns. Following yesterday's debate on the disease, it is obvious that things are ping to get worse. Businesses involved in activities outside agriculture such as haulage, equestrianism and consultancy are now experiencing a catastrophic drop in t turnover. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed an imaginative scheme for loans of £10,000 to afflicted businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has kindly been granted a one-and-a-half hour debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday. Could that be upgraded to a full day's debate so that we can discuss the national crisis properly?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that anyone could argue that the House has not discussed the issue properly. We are discussing it repeatedly and at length, and it is right and proper that we should. The hon. Gentleman made a point with which no Member would quarrel: the impact of the crisis will be substantial and expensive. However, he may be slightly in error. I understand why he thinks that, initially, the effect on rural businesses may be disproportionate, but as he may have heard in the House yesterday—I understand that it continues to be the case—there is already a substantial impact in areas where there is no cause whatever for it. I believe that the city of Bath was mentioned; in London, I understand that takings are substantially down at the London Eye, Madame Tussaud's and other such attractions. Although rural businesses are bound to be affected and everyone is conscious of that, the crisis is having an effect on the whole economy.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we would look at any proposals that are submitted. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will know that issues

are being considered along the lines of the Conservative proposals which we hope will be even more effective. The Government have already spent substantial sums—millions of pounds—and continue to expect to do so.

Mr. Graham Brady: Twelve months after the Government were condemned by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for their systematic politicisation of the national health service, the commissioner has now felt it necessary to bring in independent auditors to investigate the fact that that practice has continued unchanged in appointments to primary care trusts. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the Government's failure to observe the Nolan rules on public appointments in the national health service?

Mrs. Beckett: The Government have not failed to follow the rules. We follow the Nolan procedures implemented by the Conservative party. It is a source of slight regret to me that the hon. Gentleman continues to condemn procedures that have ensured the appointment to health boards of far more women and people from minority communities.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: This week, the Environment Sub-Committee published its report on sustainable waste management. In view of the Government's gyrations in their policy on incinerators, which have caused a spate of speculative applications and have been a source of disquiet in many communities, including that in Guildford, may we have an urgent debate on incineration policy? Will the Government consider the Conservative proposal for a moratorium to ensure that the many questions about incinerators can be sorted out?

Mrs. Beckett: Yet again, the Opposition react opportunistically by proposing steps that they would never have thought of taking when they were in government. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special extra debate on the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I do not accept his animadversions on the Government's approach. I announced a Westminster Hall debate on renewable energy. With a little ingenuity—which has occasionally been demonstrated by Opposition Members—the hon. Gentleman might manage to work his concerns into that debate.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady make time next week for a debate to discuss compensation for the consequential loss suffered by farmers who are caught by form D and exclusion zones? As such farmers are unable to move any of their animals, they have not had any income for almost six weeks and are living hand to mouth. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the package that the Government have so far proposed does anything like enough to keep those people in business.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a further special debate on that issue, although I recognise the gravity of case that the hon. Lady makes. However, I can undertake to draw her specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Points of Order

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) about the problem of aircraft deviating from approved take-off and landing paths, the Leader of the House may inadvertently have misled the House. She said that she was not sure why it had been impossible to bring measures before the House, and suggested that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions might have been too busy to do so during the current Session. I tabled an amendment to the Transport Bill that would have ensured such provision, but it was not possible to debate it because of a Government programme motion.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Ms Margaret Moran: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has come to my attention that in the Budget debate on 13 March, column 902 of Hansard, I suffered a slip of the tongue and referred to "all" rather than to "many" schools in my constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity to make any necessary correction.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. Lady said that she had visited all the schools in her constituency twice in the past year. It is a pity that she did not read the daily Hansard and correct the record immediately after the event. I know that her comments have created a lot consternation in her constituency.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was very nice of the hon. Lady to correct her comments now.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 2001

Capital Allowances Act 2001

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Act 2001

Colchester Borough Council Act 2001

Orders of the Day — Election of a Speaker

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, which will continue until 4 o'clock. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I may have to declare an interest in the matter!

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,

That

(1) This House approves the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01, Election of a Speaker (House of Commons Paper No. 40) relating to the election of a Speaker.
(2) Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker) be amended by leaving out paragraph (4); and the title of the Standing Order shall be 'Election of the Speaker: Member presiding'; and
(3) The following new Standing Orders No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) and No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot) be made:

Before I address the motion, I want to do what I think is proper and express publicly our thanks. First, our thanks are due to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who weathered the storms around the recent election of Speaker with such good sense and aplomb that several hon. Members gave substantive evidence to the Procedure Committee in support of the current system, despite the widespread anxiety that was expressed at the time. It is also worth noting the conclusion of the Committee's report, with which I believe all hon. Members will agree. It states
that the outcome of the election on 23 October 2000 would have been the same regardless of the particular electoral system employed".
Secondly, our thanks are due to the Procedure Committee, which examined the procedures for election of Speaker with thoroughness and dispatch, and produced a report which, I believe, provides the basis for a potential new system, which might avoid the anxieties that were expressed about our previous method.
Let me stress at once that the motion has been tabled in my name simply to allow the House to reach a decision on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, as has the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall deal with that shortly. The motion and the amendment have been drawn up with the assistance of the Clerks. The detailed process of drafting has, as is often the case, created the need for minor amendment and to expand the Committee's precise recommendations, so that the Standing Orders do, in some places, flesh out the detail of the Committee's recommendations. I believe that the Committee expected that. We have been greatly assisted by the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has been consulted on our detailed interpretation of the recommendations.
There is no Government position on the issue, just as there was no Government position on the election of a Speaker. It is a House of Commons matter and Labour Members are not subject to any party Whip.
The first part of the motion simply approves the recommendations that the Procedure Committee made about the election of a Speaker. They include matters that probably cannot adequately be put into Standing Orders, but should nevertheless guide the House in future. For example, the Committee noted that it perceived no need for hustings or manifestos, but did not recommend their formal prohibition. It deprecated strident campaigning and noted that it should be possible to carry out the whole electoral process in a single sitting day. Those are important guidelines, which should be put on the record, but they need not be written into Standing Orders.
The second paragraph of the motion provides for leaving out paragraph (4) of existing Standing Order No. 1. That paragraph sets out our existing procedures for electing a Speaker. The rules about who should preside over any election, and the powers that they should exercise, are left unchanged
The meat of the motion is in the two new Standing Orders proposed under paragraph (3). The first, entitled "Re-election of former Speaker", simply provides that if the Speaker in the previous Parliament is re-elected to the Commons, the House should, at the beginning of the Parliament, be given the opportunity to re-elect him or her


by acclamation. That has been the long-standing tradition of the House, and I would expect it to be maintained in all but the rarest circumstances. That was also the Procedure Committee's view. The Standing Order provides that the question on re-election should be put forthwith. It is my view, and I understand that it is shared by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, that that should emphasise the formality of the procedure.
However, it is conceivable, although always extremely unlikely, that a previous Speaker might no longer be acceptable to the House. In that rare case, and in all other cases when a new Speaker is elected, the procedure in the second proposed Standing Order for the election of a Speaker would come into play. I want to highlight one or two details in it.
The report recommends that each nomination should be accompanied by 12 signatures. It does not suggest what should happen if an hon. Member signs two candidates' nominations. It seems to have been intended that the signature of any hon. Member who signed twice should properly be disregarded. Again, that was confirmed by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. However, there was no wish for candidates to be disqualified through no fault of their own but as a result of a duplication of signatures. The draft Standing Order therefore specifies that nominations may contain up to 15 signatures. That gives some room for manoeuvre. It is the Committee's view that the nominations should not be publicly revealed. That is not written into the Standing Orders, but it would be covered by the House's general endorsement of the Committee's proposals.
Paragraph (6) provides that the order in which candidates address the House should be determined by lot in the House, to ensure that the process is as transparent as possible. After that draw, each candidate will, as the Procedure Committee recommended, be given the opportunity to address the House before the ballot takes place.
Paragraph (7) provides that the presiding Member will not have a vote in any ballot, just as at present.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was very pleased to see the provision in paragraph (6) of the proposed Standing Order, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) had a meeting in Committee Room 14, at which all the candidates were asked to speak, albeit only briefly, the proceedings were criticised for perhaps providing a hostage to fortune in trying to get votes for the candidature. I was asked to be the chairman and, having considered the matter, I thought that holding such a meeting was a sensible thing to do, and that if any candidate were to go beyond what was expected of a Speaker, it would be to their disadvantage—and so it proved.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my right hon. Friend took part in those procedures. One of the concerns that was expressed—I speak from memory—on at least the previous two occasions of a Speaker's election, was that under our former procedures it was not necessarily the case that every potential candidate was heard. I know that that was part of the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was seeking to

overcome in the procedure to which my right hon. Friend referred. I think that it is one of the virtues of the proposals of the Procedure Committee that such a procedure would now allow all potential candidates to address the House without any being excluded.
The concern is for transparency and fairness in these procedures. Paragraphs (8) to (13) set out the provisions for an exhaustive ballot. Paragraph (14) sets out the general principles that the House should meet at 2.30 pm on any day on which it is to elect a Speaker; that the question that a Member becomes Speaker shall be unamendable, as the Procedure Committee suggested; and that, in the unlikely event—one hopes—of the House rejecting the Member who comes top of the ballot, the whole process will be repeated on the following day.
I turn finally to the amendment tabled separately in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The Procedure Committee recommended that the House should be given the opportunity to decide whether the ballot for the Speaker should be open or secret. The Government have tabled the amendment to ensure that the House has the opportunity to make that decision. I recognise there are strong, genuine arguments on both sides. This is a matter on which there are bound to be legitimate differences of opinion.
The Committee considered, on balance, that the ballot should be secret and that is why that provision is in the substantive motion However, I stress that it is for the House to decide, and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary enables that choice to be made by giving the House something on which to vote.
I conclude by repeating that the Procedure Committee has done an excellent job, and done it as speedily and effectively as anybody could possibly have wished. I believe that this has given the House an opportunity to change our system for electing the Speaker if we so choose, but it is for the House to choose. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Procedure Committee. Its report is comprehensive and has been put before the House in good time, before the Easter recess. I would like to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. It took wide-ranging evidence, and that has helped to steer the direction in which the report has gone.
I would like to put on record the fact that the evidence that I gave to the Committee drew on certain themes that were of importance to a broad spectrum of Conservative Members, but I also made it clear when I was giving my own personal opinion. None the less, I am pleased to see that many of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee have focused on issues that were of broad concern to hon. Members. When we debate across the Floor of the House, particularly when the right hon. Lady and I speak from the Dispatch Box, what we mean by modernisation of the House is often misunderstood—but considering the rules for electing a Speaker is a most appropriate subject, and is certainly in line with what I regard as modernisation.
As the Leader of the House said again today, this debate will focus on House matters. Individual Members of Parliament will be able to have a say in how we shape, form and reform our structures and proceedings—and none of those is more important than the position that you hold, Mr. Speaker. I hope that later we will engage in further discussions about the powers of the Speaker. Personally, I would like the Speaker to be able to support us even more in holding the Executive to account. Perhaps the Procedure Committee will consider that in due course, as the next stage.
The debate is important and timely. I do not intend to go through the detail again, as the right hon. Lady has given a good summary of the report, which also contains the record of all the oral evidence we gave. This is a matter for individual Members. It should be appreciated that what was once considered to be the province of what are euphemistically called the usual channels, which held so much power, is being challenged That is what the report does. It has been put on the record that we should look into many aspects of our procedures, particularly how we decide who should be brought forward as a suitable candidate for Speaker.
I suppose that I now have to regard myself as part of the usual channels, but I have been doing the job for only six or seven months, and I still find it a strange job in some respects. Indeed, it took me about four months before I stopped calling the usual channels "the other channels".
The more transparency there is, and the more Members can challenge what happens, the more I welcome it. It is important that there be a clear record of decision making, especially in important matters such .is the election of a Speaker, and that Members should be able to participate rather than leaving things up to the usual channels. I respect and recognise that as modernisation, even if I am critical of some other aspects of modernisation that are brought before the House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I begin by thanking the Leader of the House very much for her kind remarks about the Procedure Committee's report. Indeed, I would go further and thank her for her tremendous helpfulness throughout the inquiry. She gave excellent evidence to the Procedure Committee, and I appreciate personally, as does my Committee, the speed with which she has arranged today's debate.
The right hon. Lady was courteous enough to let me, on behalf of my Committee, see a draft of the new Standing Orders, and to adopt some of the changes that I suggested, also on behalf of the Committee. I am happy with the text of the Standing Orders, which embodies the Committee's recommendations well.
I thank my colleagues on the Committee, some of whom are here today, for their work and support, and for the dedication that they put into producing the report. I say openly that we worked very well as a team on the inquiry; such an inquiry shows hoot Members from all parties can work well together to produce a report that will improve the procedures of the House.
The subject was sensitive and complex, and we were working to a tight schedule. None the less, we reached consensus on almost all our conclusions, and agreed the report at a single meeting. The Leader of the House has

given a very fair summary of the contents of our report, and I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating that. The report sets out its arguments clearly, and I shall simply make a few comments arising from the inquiry.
The Procedure Committee carried out the inquiry because it was the clear wish of the House that we should do so. As we say in the report, there was a lot of unhappiness among Members about the way in which our procedures operated last October. A review was obviously necessary and it was important that we consult as widely as possible within the House.
As the Chairman of the Committee, I wrote to all hon. Members and received 130 replies. Within the constraints of our timetable, the Committee also took oral evidence from as wide a cross-section of hon. Members as possible. A number of the hon. Members who gave that evidence are in the House today, hoping to participate in the debate—and I hope that they do.
We went into the inquiry with an open mind. The report sets out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the existing system. We certainly did not feel that all the criticisms of that system were justified. Many of the comments made in the press were simply what I would describe as the product of sloppy and malicious journalism of a kind that is now regrettably all to common in the field of parliamentary reporting.
In particular, we concluded that it was wrong to criticise the procedures because of the length of time that it took to choose a Speaker. The decision is a very important one. It is made only once every seven or eight years. It matters more to get it right than to do it quickly. Many Parliaments around the world take an equivalent amount of time to choose their presiding officers. In fact, only some seven weeks ago, our sister House of Commons in Canada took four and half hours to elect its new Speaker, using a system based on a secret ballot.
We also supported the decision of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), not to accept the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although that was not a popular decision—and we say in the report that we understand the frustration that it caused—it was right in procedural terms. My right hon. Friend had no alternative.
However, we conclude that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory. That is not because they were wrong when they were drafted, which was as recently as the 1970s, but because the House has changed since then. For many years, the House was content to let the usual channels referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—and in particular the Government—make the running in choosing a Speaker. Even if the leaderships of the Government and Opposition parties disagreed over the choice, as happened occasionally, the House was still presented with a choice between only two candidates.
We should be careful not to be too scathing about that arrangement. The report describes it as being based on "benevolent paternalism"—a phrase that I use carefully. It is striking that, when the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 1971, he was content that the Government should put forward a candidate for the Chair—even though the Government of the time were Conservative. Under the old


system, there was usually a genuine attempt by Government to pick a candidate who would be broadly acceptable to the House
We can also judge the system by its results. Over the years, the House has had many fine and distinguished Speakers, so the system by which they were chosen cannot have been all that bad. However, Governments have not always been successful in reading the mood of the House, or in predicting what Back-Bench Members would find acceptable.
In the report, we show that there is another tradition that runs back through the centuries—a healthy suspicion by the House of candidates whose links with Government are too strong. That attitude has grown in strength in the past 20 or 30 years. We have now reached a situation where not one of our witnesses was prepared to support any involvement at all by the usual channels—the party machines—in the process of choosing a Speaker. It follows that the traditional system of sifting out candidates to leave the House with a choice of only one or two has broken down.
That became obvious last October when 12 candidates, myself included, stood for election. The current voting system was not devised or designed for such a situation. We do not mince our words about this in the report. We say that in a multi-candidate election, the current rules are unfair because the order in which the names are put forward before the House may help to determine the outcome. The election last October disguised that because the size of the winning candidate's majority—your own, Mr. Speaker—meant that all other candidates were easily beaten. So the order in which the House decided upon them was, in that instance, irrelevant. In other circumstances, that might not be the case.
The Committee gave serious consideration to the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former chairman of the Procedure Committee, to modify the existing system. However, we decided that although it was a valiant attempt, it ultimately failed to address the criticisms that had been levelled at the system, and that root-and-branch reform was therefore necessary.
We agreed that the existing system, in the circumstances of a multi-candidate election, was unfair, at least potentially, and should be replaced. We had no difficulty in concluding that its replacement should be a ballot-based system. That was the logical, obvious alternative. We did, however, have divided views on two questions relating to the operation of the ballot.
The question of whether the ballot should be open or secret raises important issues of principle. A majority on the Committee concluded that the ballot should be secret, as is the case in similar elections in most of the major Parliaments in the Westminster tradition. A minority of colleagues, I have to confess, dissented, and although they did not formally divide the Committee, we felt that it was right to recommend that the House should have an opportunity to make a separate decision on that point. The amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will enable the House to do that, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House and her ministerial colleague for allowing that to happen.
The other issue on which there was a difference of views within the Committee was the voting system itself. The choice was between the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote. Both were recommended by the Electoral Reform Society as suitable systems by which to elect a Speaker. The arguments for and against each are well set out in the report, and even more fully in the evidence from the Electoral Reform Society, printed with the report. My preference—which was shared, I am pleased to say, by a majority of the Committee—was for the exhaustive ballot.

Mr. John Bercow: Hear, hear. Quite right.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support from a sedentary position.

Sir Peter Emery: Noise does not carry the day.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend rightly says that noise does not carry the day. Despite my preference, I think that both systems—the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote—would function satisfactorily.
We considered whether there should be a run-off, according to the existing rules, after the ballot. We decided that there was little point. The ballot would give a decisive result, while a run-off would add nothing and might lead to confusion or an erosion of the legitimacy of the ballot.
Even with this radical proposal, some of the elements of the existing system will be retained. For instance—and I address this remark specifically to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon—the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings.

Sir Peter Emery: Is that in the Standing Order, or is it just my hon. Friend's wish?

Mr. Winterton: It is the wish of the Committee on whose behalf I am speaking today. I am outlining and stressing that wish in my remarks. I repeat that the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings. There will still be an opportunity for congratulatory speeches after the election and for some of the ceremonial surrounding the election to be retained.
We recommend that there is one set of special circumstances in which there should not be an automatic ballot. That is when a sitting Speaker seeks re-election to the Chair after a general election. As we show in the historical section of the report—which is a valuable part of it—there has been a strong convention for many years that in those circumstances, a sitting Speaker is not challenged.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on that section of the report in particular in the following respect. It is clear that, for the election of a new Speaker, the nomination system that the Committee has proposed requires a degree of cross-party support. One could envisage circumstances—this may have happened although it may riot have been clear because no nomination system existed—in which such support did not exist. Should the House fetter the rights of a majority


of Members of Parliament to elect whom they want, and why does that not apply to the re-election of a former Speaker?

Mr. Winterton: As I develop my argument I think that my hon. Friend will realise that it is possible for the re-election of a sitting Speaker to be challenged, but the Committee and I, as its Chairman, do not believe that that is desirable. I will highlight that in a moment. We show in the historical section of the report that there is a strong convention that in such circumstances a sitting Speaker is not challenged. We support that convention and I hope that the House will also support it today.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that that convention helps to safeguard the office of Speaker against the politicisation that might follow if it were felt that a change in the composition of the House following a general election might lead to a change of Speaker. The new Standing Order provides that in those circumstances a single Question should be put to the House, "That the former Speaker do take the Chair." In theory, it would be possible to vote the motion down and to hold a ballot the following day, thus preserving the House's right to change its Speaker, but we think that that is highly unlikely to happen and that it would be undesirable if it did. I speak on behalf of the Committee as a whole in making those comments.
Among other issues, we considered the desirability of candidates campaigning, issuing manifestos or speaking at hustings meetings. Here, I must mention the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), whom I commend for his initiative at the last election, which enabled a number of the candidates, including me, to present themselves to a large number of Back Benchers and to be assessed on their suitability for this vital job. I found the experience exhilarating and the initiative taken by the hon. Gentleman served the House well.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I recall the hon. Gentleman at the hustings describing himself as a "traditionalist moderniser" and then correcting himself and saying that he was a "modernising traditionalist". Which is he?

Mr. Winterton: I think that I am the latter—a modernising traditionalist. I believe that many people in this Parliament have found me to be so and I am happy with that.
The broad conclusion of the Procedure Committee was that a limited amount of campaigning is only to be expected and, indeed, is healthy, bat that it should be regulated by what we describe as the hallmark of this House, common sense. At the start of a Parliament, with many new Members in the House who will not know the candidates personally, it would be helpful to have some way of judging differences between candidates. We provided for candidates to make speeches in the Chamber before the ballot. That is probably the most effective form of hustings. However, we came to the conclusion that speeches by proposers and seconders—however good they may have been or might be—do not serve much useful purpose and should be discontinued.
There would be a danger if personal manifestos set out a detailed platform of policy commitments. The nature of the Speaker's office is such that he or she has to

implement the policies decided by the House and its Committees. A new Speaker could be in an awkward position if it were known that he or she was personally opposed or dedicated to changing any of those policies which had been decided on by the House. That is not to say that candidates should not indicate their broad sympathy with certain policies, such as the modernisation of the House, which is widely talked about today, as the Leader of the House knows. My feeling is that any candidate who went too far down that road or indulged in over-frenetic campaigning would probably find it counter-productive. I think that that was the purport of the earlier intervention of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
We provide for a system of nomination, including the requirement that each candidate should have the support of at least 12 Members, three of whom do not belong to his or her party. We did not want to go too far in the direction of discouraging Members from standing, but we thought it reasonable that there should be a minimum threshold of eligibility. We set out a step-by-step proposal for a new system, but we have not attempted to prescribe every last detail.

Mr. Grieve: If I may, I will pick up on my previous point, the thrust of which I think my hon. Friend misunderstood. Will he clarify why he regards it as necessary to have cross-party support for the nomination for the speakership, when the decision must ultimately be taken in accordance with the majority view of the House? Could that not lead to a situation where there is a clear majority view of the House about who it wants as Speaker, but where, because of that mechanism, it is deprived of having the opportunity of that choice?

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend asks a hypothetical question. I do not believe that that situation will arise. Any serious candidate for the highest office of this House, that of Speaker, will always attract cross-party support. In my view and from 30 years' experience in this House, if appropriate representations are made by the individual concerned or those representing the interests of that individual, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever that such a candidate will receive cross-party support. To have merely three out of 12 Members not belonging to the candidate's party is modest indeed. It will be for the House authorities to work out the operational details of conducting a ballot within the clear framework established by the new Standing Orders.
Finally, the Committee comments on matters relating to tradition and ceremonial. We say that it should be up to the successful candidate whether he or she wishes to continue with the tradition of being dragged to the Chair. My view is that it is a pleasing piece of theatre with a serious message. It reminds us, as you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, that the new Speaker is taking over a heavy responsibility and may be called on to show courage in standing up to the Executive—perhaps not the physical courage that was needed in the past when after the Speaker's Chair could come the executioner's block, but certainly moral courage.
The Leader of the House said in evidence to us that the outcome was more important than the process. She was right. By that she meant that what mattered was that we continue to elect good, able, impartial Speakers who will defend the rights of this House and the people. Voting systems and Standing Orders are only a means to that end.
I pay tribute again to my Committee for its work. Although it is somewhat unusual, I also wish to express appreciation on behalf of my Committee of the staff who helped us throughout this important inquiry. They undertook valuable work and were much appreciated by all the Committee's members. I hope that my Committee has put together a sensible package of proposals that will enable the right outcomes to be reached and so strengthen the speakership and the House of Commons. I hope that the House will support the proposals.

Mr. Tony Benn: I ask the indulgence of the House. This may be my last speech, so if I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to range widely.
I support the report of the Procedure Committee and the motion proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The report is scholarly and historical; it considers all the arguments. My only difference with it is over the question of a secret ballot. I have always understood that if one votes as oneself, it must be secret. Years ago, when I was canvassing in Bristol, I asked a woman to support me and she replied, "Mr. Benn, the ballet is secret". I thought of her dancing alone in the bedroom, where no candidate was allowed to know about it. However, when we vote in a representative capacity, people must know what we have done, so I shall vote for the amendment. The Committee has done very well. I hope that the House accepts the report.
The old system had serious difficulties. Although I disagreed strongly with the Father of the House, he carried out his duties with exceptional skill—with panache! I felt that he was the only Member of the House who could have turned the Beefeaters into a fighting force—he showed such passion and commitment to the rules. We got the Speaker we wanted and I hope that, as a result of today's proceedings, we shall get the system we want—the one that I advocated, as the House will recall.
As I have done on previous occasions—when we were electing a Speaker—I want to look a little more broadly at the role of the Speaker. Often, we tend to think of the Speaker in relation only to the Chamber, but the Speaker's role is of much wider importance. Relations between the legislature and the Executive go through the Speaker of the House.
We live in a strange country: we do not elect our head of state; we do not elect the second Chamber. We elect only this House, and even in this House enormous power is vested in the prerogatives. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting us, sign treaties without consulting us, agree to laws in Brussels without consulting us and appoint bishops, peers and judges without consulting us. The role of the Speaker today compared with that of Mr. Speaker Lenthall is that you, Mr. Speaker, are protecting us from the triple powers of Buckingham palace, the Millbank tower and central office, which, in combination, represent as serious a challenge to our role.
Then there is the link between the Commons and the people. I have seen many schoolchildren taken around the House, and have talked to some of them about how it has been a home of democracy for hundreds of years. In 1832, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote. That may

seem a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born. When I was born, women were not allowed the vote until they were 30. Democracy—input from the people—is very, very new. The link between popular consent and the decisions of the House can be tenuous.
Furthermore, nowadays, Parliament representing the will of the people has to cope with many extra-parliamentary forces—very threatening extra-parliamentary forces. I refer not to demonstrations, but to the power of the media, the power of the multinationals, the power of Brussels and the power of the World Trade Organisation—all wholly unelected people.
The House will forgive me for quoting myself, but in the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person—Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates—ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
The role of the Speaker has another importance. When the political manifestos are yellowing in the public libraries, a good ruling from the Speaker in a footnote in "Erskine May" might turn out to be one of the guarantees of our liberty.
There are two ways of looking at Parliament. I have always thought that, from the beginning—from the model Parliament—the establishment has seen Parliament as a means of management: if there is a Parliament, people will not cause trouble, whereas, of course, the people see it as a means of representation. Those are two quite different concepts of what Parliament is about. The establishment wants to defuse opposition through Parliament; the people want to infuse Parliament with their hopes and aspirations.
I have put up several plaques—quite illegally, without permission; I screwed them up myself. One was in the broom cupboard to commemorate Emily Wilding Davison, and another celebrated the people who fought for democracy and those who run the House. If one walks around this place, one sees statues of people, not one of whom believed in democracy, votes for women or anything else. We have to be sure that we are a workshop and not a museum.
My next point, if I am not out of order, is that all progress comes, in my judgment, from outside the House. I am in no way an academic, but if I look back over history, I see many advances first advocated outside the House, denounced by people in power and then emerging. Let me use a couple of non-controversial examples. Twenty years ago, Swampy would have been denounced as a bearded weirdy; he will probably be in the next honours list, because the environmental movement has won. Similarly, when that madman, Hamilton, killed the children at Dunblane, the then Conservative Home Secretary banned handguns within six months, because public opinion had shifted. So we are the last place to get the message, and it is important that we should be connected effectively to public will.
There is a lot of talk about apathy, and it is a problem, but it is two sided. Governments can be apathetic about the people, as well as people being apathetic about Governments. For me, the test of an effective, democratic


Parliament is that we respond to what people feel in a way that makes us true representatives. The real danger to democracy is not that someone will burn Buckingham palace and run up the red flag, but that people will not vote. If people do not vote, they destroy, by neglect, the legitimacy of the Government who have been elected.
May I finish with a couple personal points? I first sat in the Gallery 64 years ago, and my family have been here since 1892—five of us in four generations, in three centuries—and I love the place. I am grateful to my constituents who have elected me. I am grateful to the Labour party, of which I am proud to be a member. I am grateful to the socialists, who have helped me to understand the world in which we live and who give me hope. I am also deeply grateful to the staff of the House—the Clerks, the policemen, the security staff, the Doorkeepers, librarians, Hansard and catering staff—who have made us welcome here.
May I finish, in order, by saying something about yourself, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, you are the first Speaker who has remained a Back Bencher. You have moved the Speaker's Chair on to the Back Benches. You sit in the Tea Room with us. You are wholly impartial, but your roots are in the movement that sent you here, and you have given me one of the greatest privileges that I have ever had—the right to use the Tea Room and the Library after the election. Unless someone is a Member or a peer, he or she cannot use the Tea Room or the Library, but you have extended the rules by creating the title of "Freedom of the House", so that the Father of the House and I will be able to use the Tea Room. You will not be shot of us yet. I hope in paying you a warm tribute, Mr. Speaker, that you do not think that I am currying favour in the hope that I might he called to speak again because, I fear, that will not be possible.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It is great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the debate. This is not the first occasion on which I have found myself, rather unexpectedly, agreeing with him. Indeed, the first time that I did so was when I canvassed for him, as a young Liberal, as did many of my colleagues, in that famous by-election in Bristol, when he demonstrated a commitment to democracy which we all admire.
I want to take up just one word from his very eloquent speech—"infusion". I am not referring to his favourite beverage, although I am sure that we will all welcome him back in the Tea Room after the general election. He has been an infusion of real-life democracy in the Chamber, which has not been as evident with many hon. Members in our own work here.
I, too, pay tribute to the Committee and, indeed, to its Chairman for the balanced way in which he has presented its report this afternoon. I particularly want to underline the fact that, throughout the report and the debate, it has been recognised that times have changed and that, whatever else we do, we must prevent A such matters from slipping back into the hands of the usual channels. The election of a Speaker is a matter for the whole House.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may recall that, on a previous occasion, I moved a motion stating that the power of the parties has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. That is, of course, a reflection of the

famous Dunning motion, moved in the House in the 1780s, which referred to the Crown. It is extremely important that the House owns the system by which the Speaker is elected and, thereby, shows that the speakership is in its ownership and under the control and influence of nobody else. That is why I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman about the ballot.
The election of the Speaker is an unusual ballot; it is not like a normal Division, when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are here in a representative capacity. However, on a matter of this sort, we do not act in that capacity; we are here as members of an institution saying how we as individual Members—and not the parties or external bodies—want it to be run. We all take part on a completely equal basis—none higher and none lower—and according to exactly the same terms. That is why, as I shall explain in a moment, I strongly support the proposal for a secret ballot.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a past master at getting things right, but his amendment appears to be somewhat defective. It refers only to line 28, when the word "secret" also appears in lines 24 and 25. No doubt, that can be corrected by the usual channels.
We are all here as individual Members and I am speaking in a personal capacity. However, I have undertaken extensive consultation with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the parliamentary party, so I may refer to the fact that, on some matters I have the unanimous support of my colleagues.
First, I want to make a point of principle. The fact that an outcome is satisfactory and something that we all applaud and recognise as right does not necessarily mean that the route by which we reached that outcome was satisfactory. The fact that the successful candidate on 23 October was broadly welcomed in the House and is very acceptable—I am sure that, with the passage of time, more people have come to that view even if they did not take it at the time—does not mean that the process by which we came to that conclusion was satisfactory. I am grateful to those who gave evidence to the Committee and to the Committee itself for making that point so clearly in the report.
Nevertheless, it is also true that if we had had more time, it might have been possible to have made the inquiry more effective. It is curious to decide who one wants for a job before one writes the job specification. We would never interview someone without deciding what the job was for which we were interviewing him. I therefore regret the fact that it is not been possible, within the time constraints, for the Procedure Committee or any other Select Committee to examine the role of Speaker. I was grateful for the support that was given to that view by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
In a memorandum to the Committee and to the Modernisation Committee, we made suggestions for the modernisation of the role of Speaker as well of the process by which we choose from the candidates.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Procedure Committee is very keen to undertake an inquiry into the role of Speaker. No doubt it will consider the subject in the next Parliament.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for that assurance. When the time comes, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity


to expand on the memorandum that already appears on pages 34 to 39 of the report. There is unfinished business, but I put it no more strongly than that. None the less, I pay tribute to the Committee for producing a report to enable the House to come to a decision before any possible election.
The Committee's report contains a persuasive argument for a secret ballot. The only possible argument against it—I have already referred to it—is that of precedent. However, this place is evolutionary and it would be a useful precedent to establish that there may, in exceptional circumstance, be a good case for a secret ballot—the exception proving the rule.
The point is not that the Speaker will examine the Division lists and think, "Ah, well, the hon. Member for Bolsover did not vote for me, so I'll make sure that he does not get in at business questions again." That is not the issue. I have complete faith in the integrity of the Chair; the problem is perception.

Mr. Speaker: Never hold a grudge against the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Tyler: I am sure that is true, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great affection, will not hold a grudge against me.
The point that I was about to make is not that the Speaker might examine the Division list, but that the Whips might. I am a member of the usual channels club, so I think that, on a matter of such importance, we should not know whether our colleagues have voted in one way or another. It might be very damaging to publish the list.
On the electoral system, the Chairman of the Committee very fairly set out the arguments for and against exhaustive ballots and the alternative vote. I regret that it is not been possible to put that choice before the House today. As the Chairman said, there was a balanced argument in Committee.
I am particularly disturbed by a paragraph in the report that compares the two systems. Paragraph 66 states:
The Exhaustive Ballot has the advantage over AV that Members can amend their preferences in each round after the results of the previous round are known.
I do not regard that as an advantage. It is a disadvantage, because Members might run with the herd—we have all seen that happen. Indeed, those Members who are worried about tactical voting should examine very carefully that recommendation, because it is a recipe for tactical voting. Members might see which way the wind is blowing and vote tactically. One of the great advantages of the alternative vote is that it makes unnecessary any form of tactical voting.
It is true that the Committee tended to dilute the argument that one disadvantage of the exhaustive ballot is that it takes a long time. I accept that. I do not think that it is necessarily a disadvantage that the House should take its time in reaching a conclusion. Therefore, I take the Committee Chairman's advice on that.
I want to draw attention to the letter that the Bishop of Woolwich sent to the Committee. Although it did not

appear in the report, it was circulated to Committee members and in it he spells out in full the advantages of the alternative vote. He writes:

"1. It does not matter how many candidates stand;
2. No candidate can 'split' a vote, or come under pressure not to stand because he or she might do so;
3. It does not matter if several candidates of the same view or outlook stand;
4. There is no possibility or need of the compromise known as 'tactical' voting;
5. It is possible to express all sorts of different kinds of preference within the preferential voting—e.g. party political ones, gender ones, geographical ones, individual personality ones;
6. No recrimination of any sort is possible afterwards as justice has been done and has been seen to he done, and can be checked out in the various stages of the counting."

The bishop then refers to the fact that not only the Church of England—quite a respectable body—but many political parties use the alternative vote for their internal elections. I regret, therefore, that we shall not have an opportunity to vote on that issue. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would all support the alternative vote.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument for the alternative vote, but why did he not table an amendment to that effect?

Mr. Tyler: That is a fair point. I stand reprimanded by the hon. Gentleman. I felt that it was important this afternoon to deal with the big issue of the secret ballot. I did not want to complicate matters by tabling an amendment. However I draw the House's attention to the figures on page xxvii of the report, which show how many Members support the different types of voting. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I said that all Liberal Democrat Members should be included in the figures, but they have not been. Therefore the figures and the percentages in the report are wrong.
I am determined—I hope that the House will be—to get away from first past the post. It clearly is totally inadequate for the decision that we had to take last October and that we might need to take in future.
Page 34 of the report refers to Deputy Speakers. I hope that the Committee will move on to consider that issue, because the present arrangement is not satisfactory. It is no reflection on the current occupants of the post of Deputy Speaker—no complaint has been made against them—but the arrangement by which they emerge like a butterfly from a chrysalis without anyone knowing why, how or who made the decision is unsatisfactory. Not even a motion that is amendable or debatable is put before the House. I hope that that will change.
I return to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The flummery that follows the election of Speaker gives the impression that the decision is conditional on approval from up there in the other place or up there at the other end of the Mall. That must go; it is not right. It is proper for us to ask the other parts of the tripartite constitutional arrangement to acknowledge that we have taken a decision, but we do not want their approval. After the last election of Speaker, I was dumbfounded by the extraordinary way in which the British constitution finds it difficult to catch up.
On a personal note, I have no problem with the hustings and manifestos. I recognise that they have a purpose, but I have a substantial plea. It is in this Chamber that we make the decision: candidates make their case by addressing Members on equal terms. I hope that we will not move the centre of gravity to another part of the Palace where the manifesto is published or issued, or where people make hustings speeches. I have great pleasure in supporting the report's main recommendations because it brings the centre of gravity back to this place, where it belongs.

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move, in line 28, to leave out the word 'secret'.
May I say a word or two about the fine speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? I hope that it was not his last. As on so many occasions, he dwelt on the way in which democracy evolved in this country. Some illusions can be held about the fact that we lacked freedom and democracy for centuries. I have two responses to that. First, with all its imperfections, our democracy and House of Commons survived when many Parliaments in the last century did not because they gave up to fascism and tyranny.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend mentioned his family's long tradition of serving as Members of Parliament, and I am glad that his son will continue that for many years. However, those of us who come from a different background also recognise that this democracy attracted many people, including my ancestors In the early years of the 20th century, when my grandparents wanted to live in a country where they could have security and safety, it was to this island that they came. Perhaps they did not see the imperfections in the same light as I did, because many years later I began to have left-wing views and have held them since. We need to make it clear that often over the centuries, long before my grandparents came here, this island provided safety and security for those who wanted to live their lives without tyranny.
I, too, congratulate the Procedure Committee on its inquiry, which was held after the election of the Speaker. It was conducted promptly and efficiently. I am glad that paragraph 42 rightly states that the criticism about the proceedings on 23 October was not justified. We did take seven hours, but that probably displeased the sketch writers because they like to be in the Gallery for only half an hour on a Wednesday. I see no reason why we should apologise for taking our time in doing the important job of electing a Speaker. There is no reason why anyone who stood for the job, including the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, should apologise. It is an honour to be in the Chair, as you have explained several times, Mr. Speaker, and we hold those hon. Members who wanted to occupy that position in no less respect.
I accept the thrust of the report. Even though I do not believe that the procedure was especially defective on 23 October, I have no illusions about the fact that the majority of hon. Members want to adopt a different system, much along the lines recommended by the Committee. On ballots, I am usually in favour of first past the post, but I accept that some processes, including the selection of Labour candidates, use other forms of balloting. Given the two choices, I believe that the exhaustive ballot should be used even though it will take more time. I do not think that we need to hurry things up unnecessarily.
I oppose, however, a secret ballot, but I do not want to exaggerate the problems associated with it. One Conservative Member who gave evidence to the Committee argued that if we have a secret ballot for the election of Speaker—which may well be the wish of the House—we might end up having them for other purposes. I do not accept that a secret ballot means that one, two or three years down the road we would be arguing for a secret ballot on policy matters.
I object to the principle of secret ballots, even for the election of the Speaker. Like other hon. Members, I take school parties around the House. In the No Lobby, I point out what was said in 1642 by the Speaker to the King. I also show them copies of Hansard and tell them that every word we utter in the House and every vote we cast is duly recorded. If they are primary school children, I usually get them to go through the procedure of voting. I also explain that if their parents write to me to ask how I voted and I want to mislead them for opportunistic reasons—which I would not dream of doing—all they need to do is go to the local library and check. We carry out our business in public.
I do not accept that a Speaker calls people on the basis of who voted for him or her. If the Speaker decides that that is a criterion for calling Members at Question Time or in debates, we have chosen the wrong person. In giving evidence, Lady Boothroyd said that she did not look at the voting list for her election for a year. Had she been so biased, I would have been safe because I voted for her in 1992.

Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman have a different view if, in addition to the secret ballot, we had the Canadian system in which there is no announcement of the votes cast in the ballots? That removes tactical voting in the next round because people are simply told that the last person has dropped off the list.

Mr. Winnick: It is the principle of a secret ballot in the House of Commons to which I am opposed. If there are enough troops, I shall press my amendment to a vote and let us see how far we get.
I do not accept that pressure is put on Members to vote. Paragraph 55 explains that such pressure has often proved counter-productive. I am glad to hear it. If Members are subject to pressure when there is a free vote, then it is likely that the wrong people have been elected here. It is the principle that matters. All our votes need to be duly recorded even when we vote on an internal matter that is of little concern to constituents. Perhaps other hon. Members have received letters about what happened last October, but I have not. I want everything to be above board. Our votes on major and minor issues are recorded. That should be the case for all our actions, including the election of the Speaker.
My last point concerns the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I hope that this will not be seen as in any way disrespectful to Her Majesty, but I find it distasteful and odd that in this day and age we require consent for the election of the Speaker. In many respects, it contradicts all that we say about 1642. I hope also that I will not be misunderstood when I say that I would be much happier if Black Rod, when he comes here, used the word "request", instead of "command", because that would demonstrate the authority of this


House. I am concerned about other matters, although I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would not want me to stray from the subject of the debate. In this day and age, it is not necessary for someone to come here with a stick to give us a message from the Queen. Earlier today, you announced measures to which Her Majesty had given her Royal Assent, and there is no reason why you could not inform the House that a message had been duly received from the Queen.
Whichever party is in office, it is always keen to say that the country should modernise and restrictive practices should be stopped, but so many of our own restrictive practices continue. I know that some people say that it is not necessary to object to them, but they give an impression of the way in which we conduct our business. I refer to pantomime performances, such as my colleague coming in with a stick. At one time, the Whip concerned had to walk backwards and wear morning dress.
If we are to modernise—if one likes that term—the method for electing a Speaker, we should not be afraid, at the beginning of the 21st century, to bring our practices up to date so that those who look on do not say, "That's odd. What has it got to do with the way in which business should be conducted?" This is a serious place and we should conduct ourselves in a serious manner.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have been here together for many years. Indeed, we started together at the Oxford Union way back just after the war, and the fact that we are both leaving at the next election brings back certain memories. I can think of no Member during that time who has won for himself as wide a reputation outside the House as he has done, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has achieved that. Much of the time, I disagree with him—I did so way back at Oxford and I do so even today. None the less, the reputation that he has been able to obtain deserves immense applause from hon. Members of all parties.
I will return to the right hon. Gentleman and the fact that he has stirred up this matter unnecessarily, but first I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which I had the pleasure of chairing for 14 years. He has produced a thorough report, as we would expect of him, and made specific recommendations, most of which I disagree with.
As for the role of the Speaker, once a man or woman has been brought to the big Chair as Speaker of the House, they have the right to expect to be able to continue in that role irrespective of a general election, unless they commit some unforgivable nonsense. The Speaker can stand for re-election in their constituency, which they usually do as Speaker, and they are not normally properly opposed. It would be wrong if they could then arrive back in the House to find themselves knocked out of the Speaker's Chair, perhaps for no other reason than politics. What would happen then? Would that person sit on the Back Benches? That would be quite impossible. Presumably, they would have to go immediately to the House of Lords, but they may well not want to do that. That person will have given a great part of their life to being Speaker, and

they have the right to expect the House to allow them to continue in office unless, as I said, they have made a remarkable error or committed a semi-criminal offence.
As Labour Members have said, the role of the Speaker has changed and continues to change. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I first came to the House, the Speaker was like a High Court judge. One did not speak to him or see him socially. No one was ever invited to Speaker's House, and his role had no social aspect. The person who changed all that was Lord Thomas of Tonypandy, formerly George Thomas. He said that he could retain the respect of the House while being friendly with Members of Parliament on social occasions in Speaker's House, and he proved that that was true. The role of the Speaker in entertaining members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and visiting delegations enhances the role of the House itself. That should be encouraged, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you are moving in that direction most admirably.
Finally, I turn to an aspect of the Speaker's role which will become more important. It is becoming more difficult to hold the Executive to account in the House. In the past three or four years, developments have moved against the House, and that process needs to be stopped. We have to ensure that the power of Parliament is moved from No. 10 Downing street back into the Chamber. We will have to rely on the Speaker in different ways to try to ensure that that is brought about. You have the power, Mr. Speaker, to direct the Executive in certain ways and to ensure that the House is not done down or put to one side. We will have to rely on the person sitting in the big Chair to help the House to perform its role. The next Parliament will have to consider that matter most carefully.
On the proposals themselves, the idea that there is a general opinion among Members of Parliament that the current method of electing a Speaker is wrong was brought about by the excellent publicity that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was able to obtain for the motion that the tabled and the lack of understanding of many of the newer Members who had never gone through the process of electing a Speaker. That had not happened for two Parliaments, so their incomprehension is hardly surprising. There was also a lack of understanding about the opaqueness that could exist in other systems, whereas the present system is absolutely open and could not be thought to be more democratic.
Every candidate has a supporter and a seconder who make a speech in their favour and the candidates themselves can make a speech. The House then votes on the candidates. How much more democratic can one get? To sweep that away for a system that is not proven is very strange indeed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I believe that my right hon. Friend is inadvertently misleading the House. In fact, the old system—the system that we currently have—could result in a number of candidates for the office of Speaker not having an opportunity to speak as individuals and be heard by the House, and their proposers and seconders not having an opportunity to put their name forward. Uniquely, on the occasion of the last election of a Speaker, through the skill of our right hon. Friend the


Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), every candidate had that opportunity, but that has not been the case in the past.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend makes a procedural point. As he knows, I put to his Committee certain suggestions for simple alterations to the Standing Orders governing the proceedings of the House. If, under the old system, an amendment to the original motion is carried, that becomes a substantive motion and must be put to the House immediately, so that no further amendments can be made to the already amended motion. However, it is the simplest thing in the world to take the amended motion not as a substantive motion, but as an ordinary motion to which further amendment can be made. The resulting system could not be more democratic or more open.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Under our current system, a different test is applied to each candidate, depending where he or she appears in the order. That is why I think that the conclusion drawn by the Procedure Committee is a good one.

Sir Peter Emery: I have heard that argument and read it in the Committee report, but I see no proof that it is right. I see no reason why someone who wanted my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to be Speaker could not have voted for another candidate and then returned to vote for my hon. Friend when his turn came. There is no proof that the order altered the result, as people have argued it did. Lady Boothroyd was not the first nominee, but the second; her name was carried and no one wished to stand against her, with the result that her name was carried unanimously from then on.
It is proposed that we change our system and adopt a voting structure whereby the House will make a decision using a method that we have never used before. I am concerned that if we go down that road there is a risk that in future, in respect of other amendments, we shall be tempted to drift towards the use of a similar system—a poll, rather than a vote—which would do great damage to the rules and procedures of the House. I am sorry that the Committee has decided to cast away the system that resulted in the election of the man whom the House wanted. No one disagrees with that statement. When we have a system that is so transparent and democratic, I am dubious about making change merely for its own sake.
I certainly oppose any vote being kept secret. The moment we have secret votes, a terrifying scenario arises wherein Members tell every candidate that he or she has their support. We have all seen that happen in Committees or heard it from people who have stood for office. They say, "I counted heads and was certain of the majority that I needed to get elected—but I didn't get elected! Isn't that strange?" In fact, the moment a secret vote is in the offing, people cease to be directly honest and are friendly to all the candidates, and when the results of a secret vote are made known, no one knows who has been telling the truth and who has not.
I am massively in favour of retaining the open vote. Every vote in the House of Commons is open. No vote is secret. Why should we adopt a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker? It is right that Members should be able to stand and say which candidate they support—on the most recent occasion, the candidates included my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, my right hon.

Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who was eventually elected to the office of Speaker. The process should be as open to public gaze as every other aspect of the House's business.

Mr. Winnick: It is a principle.

Sir Peter Emery: I agree absolutely.
The remarks made by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) hark back to a Procedure Committee report that was published when I was the Chairman and the hon. Member for Walsall, North was a member of that Committee. In that report, we stated specifically that the first thing that a Parliament should do on assembling is elect a Speaker. That is not meant as any criticism of the monarch—no one is a greater royalist than I. However, one can, while remaining a royalist, want the House to be what it is: the independent voice of the people, who have a right to elect who will be their Chairman or their Speaker.
Once we have done that, I do not mind traipsing down to the other place to tell them what we have done. That is fine—it is announcing what we have done, not asking permission to do it. I urge the current Leader of the House to point out to her successor, whoever that may be, that in future we must take the role of the Speaker into our own hands: it must be we who elect the Speaker, without needing any permission so to do.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I read in the newspapers that it is quite likely that a few weeks from now we shall be campaigning in a general election. I look forward to doing so. When we campaign, we tell all the voters whom we encounter, whether by canvassing or in other ways, that they are sovereign, that they are wise and that their decision will determine the future of the country; yet in the report and in the debate, the electorate have no place. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the debate was about how we want this place to be run. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we are debating an internal matter. That, in my view, is precisely what is wrong with the debate.
I have been a Member of Parliament for almost 31 years and I hope to continue for a good deal longer, but if there is anything that I dislike about the House, it is the smug club atmosphere that is cultivated here—the notion that this place is a gentleman's club and that debates such as this one, as distinct from party political debates, are conducted within some sort of cosy consensus. So far today, we have heard a very cosy debate—even when people have disagreed with each other, they have done so on a cosy basis. If this were not a Chamber televised throughout the nation for those who want to watch it, we might well this afternoon not be discussing how a great Parliament—the second oldest Parliament in the world—should be presided over. We might as well be discussing how a private club elects its president, because it is all about what goes on in this club. That is what the debate has been about so far.
There have been references to the electorate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the people. That was the sole reference to them. When my


right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to what goes on outside this place, so far as I could tell he was not referring to the views of the 45 million or so members of the electorate. Instead, he was referring to small pressure groups that make their wishes felt and attempt in various ways to persuade the House to veer away from the decisions that it makes as a political assembly.
I disagree strongly with the tenor of the report and its proposals. Most of all, I disagree with the motivations that lie behind it. Some members of the Procedure Committee have been in this place for a long time. They have been sucked into the club atmosphere, which can smother the place. I thought that many of the new members of the Committee had come to the House because they wanted to change things a great deal and make them absolutely different. I am dismayed that somehow they have been sucked into the vacuum of smug consensus. As I have said, that is one of the things that I dislike intensely about this place.
I do not mean that we cannot have good personal relationships with one another across the Floor and even, on occasions, within our parties. However, that is different from believing that we must not speak up and that we must not in any way disrupt the atmosphere when the House is at its best—which I suppose is what the debate so far will be described as—and on display. For me, it is not the House at its best; it is the House at its most deterring.
If there were two reasons why I would not seek re-election to this place, the first would be Virgin trains, which make my travelling to and from Manchester such an utter nightmare. The second would be the idea that the House is still some sort of gentlemen's organisation which reluctantly had to admit women and was smothered when a sixth of Members were part of the majority within the electorate.
I shall say why I do not like the report and why I wish that the Government were not presenting it to the House for adoption. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North declares himself with pride as a socialist. I, too, declare myself as a socialist. However, that does not mean that we change things for the sake of changing them. As a socialist, I want to change things where they matter. I want to change things so that my constituents have a greater voice in the way their lives go. However, when things are working perfectly well in the House, I do not see why we should have a huge disruption of the sort that is proposed.
The report states that if the system that is proposed for adoption had existed earlier, our present Speaker would still have been Speaker. That is despite the fact that what might be called the establishment did not want the present Speaker to be elected. Newspapers jeered, and continued jeering a good deal after his election. There was the uncouthness of the fact that he had a Scottish accent. There was the fact that he came from the working class. Even my good friends on the Government Front Bench were reluctant to see him adopted. That was because of the inferiority complex that had grown in the Labour party that somehow Labour Governments should not allow a Labour Member to be elected when a Labour Government were in power.
I did what I could—

Mrs. Beckett: I suppose that it is a dangerous game to remind Mr. Speaker that one did not vote for him.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, who is advancing a legitimate argument, there was no Front-Bench view. There was no cosy conspiracy on the Front Benches. I began rather to regret that there had not been a conspiracy. I took the view, which I think others took—although obviously not in sufficient numbers—that the speakership should alternate between the two sides of the House. I have held that view for about 20 years. I held it especially strongly when the Conservative Government tried to breach what I thought was an important principle. That was the basis on which I made my decision.

Mr. Kaufman: I always accept what my right hon. Friend says. However, I felt obliged to write what I regarded as a decisive letter to The Times to point out that the principle of alternation was bogus and had never been observed when Conservative Governments had been in power. I made the point in all friendliness to the principal candidate who emerged from the Conservative party that he had not accepted any such system of alternation, as he voted against Betty Boothroyd and for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) when Speaker Weatherill went on his way.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall continue. I do not want to take up too much time.
The report says that although matters turned out all right in the case of Speaker Martin, in other circumstances that might not have been the case, depending on who was proposed first. However, in the only other contested election under the system that is now being got rid of, the person who was proposed first—the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—was decisively defeated. The House knows what it is doing. It may make stupid decisions from time to time, but that is done on the basis of rationality. Stupidity can be based on rationality. Good decisions can be based on rationality, too.
I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North says about the secret ballot. This is a House where we are rightly held to account by our constituents. We cannot deceive our constituents about how we vote. My hon. Friend is old-fashioned and says that they can go to a library to see how we have voted, but now they can use the Internet as well to obtain the information speedily. If the amendment is carried, that will alleviate the situation to some extent, but not entirely. Those who nominate the candidates for Speaker will be part of a secret cabal and 1 do not see why they should be.
It is not as though crossing the Speaker is the end of the world. When I was elected in 1970, there was an election for Speaker Selwyn Lloyd. I voted against him because I did not believe that an ex-Cabinet Minister should be Speaker. Not too long afterwards he threw me out of the Chamber. I am convinced that he did so because


I was disorderly rather than because I voted against him. The House was brought to a standstill by protesting Members until I was brought back again, in great triumph.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

Mr. Kaufman: I will, but I do not want to give way too often. I have already been speaking for quite a long time.

Mr. Bercow: I, for one, am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I note what he says about being strongly opposed as a matter of principle to a former Cabinet Minister becoming Speaker. I agree with him on that. Does his opposition to such a person becoming Speaker extend to opposition to his or her not being nominated?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I believe that every Member has the right to put herself or himself forward. Who is chosen depends on the wisdom of the House On the whole, the House makes quite wise decisions. If we look back, many Speakers in the post-war period emerged from the Front Benches rather than the Back Benches. That is one of the reasons why I believe it is a good thing that we have a Speaker who has never been a Front Bencher of any sort or for any party.
I believe that the method of election that we use has worked perfectly well. I am always suspicious of any system proposed by the Electoral Reform Society; I am surprised that Charter 88 did not poke its nose into this, as it does into everything that it possibly can. We are all hon. Members—although no doubt some will try to change that before long and we shall have to call one another by name—and I wish that we were not taking this decision in an atmosphere of cosy mutual self-congratulation. I wish that there had been a bit of nastiness in our debate.

Mr. Winnick: We can always rely on you.

Mr. Kaufman: With his customary bitterness, my hon. Friend has misrepresented me; there is not a better-natured person in the House than me
If I felt that I had sufficient support, I would divide the House on the adoption of the report, and the Government motion. Since that is not so, the least that I can do is vote against the secret ballot, which I shall do.

Sir George Young: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) although I do not agree with what he said about our debate or the report. We have had a serious, high-quality debate on a serious, high-quality report, marked by what may turn out to be swan songs from two distinguished parliamentarians: my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), whose work on the select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of commons has made him an outstanding servant of the House, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). There is simply no other right hon. Member like him I have never heard him make a bad speech, and this afternoon he made a

glorious speech on the House, a subject about which he feels strongly. For consistency, passion, eloquence, originality and sincerity, he is impossible to beat.
I want to make a brief contribution, and shall begin by complimenting the Select Committee, which made a thorough analysis of the problem, saw a wide range of witnesses, many of whom are in the Chamber, and produced a well-argued report. As Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has done a service to the House. I compliment him on performing a post mortem on his own candidacy as well as that of many others.
I agree with the Committee that change is necessary; the previous system was simply not designed for the circumstances that confronted us five months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, it ran the risk of placing premiums on tactical voting and the order in which candidates were presented. What happened in October was not a shambles. In some ways, it was no more unusual than other quaint procedures in the House, but it was certainly not ideal and the system needs an overhaul.
I agree that the outcome would have been the same regardless. There was a certain inevitability as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) dragged the tumbrels to the guillotine and candidate after candidate was dismissed. However, the conclusion that the outcome would have been the same sits uneasily with the report's subsequent recommendation of a secret vote in future. I shall return to that in a moment. Personally, I am against the hustings for the reasons set out in your memorandum, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it runs the risk of an auction for the speakership.
I am sure that all those who stood were grateful to their proposers and seconders, but I do not think that they influenced the outcome. I do not think that the candidates' speeches influenced the outcome either. Again, that is not unprecedented in the Chamber. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon that all candidates should speak and formally present themselves to the House; that is important and symbolic.
The controversy is about the proposition that there should be a secret vote in future which, if I may use an economist's phrase, hits me right on my indifference curve. I do not go along with the argument that Speakers will discriminate against those who do not vote for them. The risk that the opposite will happen is more likely. Speakers will over-compensate, as home referees often do regarding the other side. I understand the arguments for a secret vote, but my view is that while a secret vote is as valid as an open vote, it is not as valuable. The argument for a secret ballot rests on the proposition that people will vote differently in secret from how they vote in public. It may make life more difficult for the Speaker if there is subsequently a perceived loss of confidence in him. Support for the Speaker and his authority may be greater if the ballot is open, not closed.
If there are valid arguments for a secret ballot, why is the Division to re-elect the Speaker at the beginning of a Parliament—when a Division can be called—open and not secret? Exactly the same arguments could be applied to that. What is to happen if there is a censure motion? I assume that there will be an open vote, as there is at the moment. Having conceded the argument on electing the Speaker in private in the report, the Committee may not


have followed the logic through to other circumstances in which the authority of the Speaker may come into question.
I hope that we can dispense with delay after the election, and therefore agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I am not sure why we had to hang around for three hours while the Great Seal was dusted down. I hope that we can streamline that process and make it clearer that the authority of the House is supreme.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about continuity of office and having a different procedure for re-electing a sitting Speaker. It is not right that the Speaker's position should be put into play every time that there is a general election. I therefore accept the argument for a different, streamlined procedure when a sitting Speaker is re-elected.

Mr. Bercow: At the beginning of his speech, my right hon. Friend said how strongly he approved of the speech of our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). Did he agree with our right hon. Friend, as I did, that it is one thing to notify the sovereign of our decision, but another to seek approval for it?

Sir George Young: I agree with the consensus in the House that one needs to remove ambiguity about who is charge of the process.
My final point is about paragraph 86, which I regard as the most important paragraph in the whole report. It states:
Had time allowed we would have wished to consider a number of connected matters as a follow-up … for instance. the role and functions of the Speaker.
That is expressed as a hope, rather than a recommendation, but I hope that it will be followed up.
The House may be aware that the Hansard Society will soon produce a report on parliamentary scrutiny. There is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the role of the House. Indeed, that was part of the context in which the debate on the speakership took place last year. I understand all the difficulties involved in an inquiry into the role and functions of the Speaker, who is both the servant of the House and, in many ways, its master. As several hon. Members have said, if the terms of trade are to tilt back to Parliament from the Executive—as many of us believe they should—the Speaker is going to be involved. I am sure that the Speaker would want to be assisted by an inquiry by the House into that important subject.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for referring to paragraph 86, which deals with future inquiries. May I repeat the Committee's strong view that, had there been time in this Parliament, we would have undertaken an inquiry into the Speaker's role and functions? However, it was clear that the House wished us to reach a decision on the procedure governing the election, which is why we have a rather short-circuited inquiry. We cannot bind our successors, but we hope that they will take that up.

Sir George Young: On a consensual note, I conclude by expressing the strong hope that that will be the first task of a new Parliament. It could set the context for the on-going debate about the terms of trade.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I rise as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure to speak in support of the motion. I have been a member of the Committee throughout the current Parliament. In my view, the report to which the motion relates is the most memorable that it has published during that time. That is not to say that the Committee has not conducted a number of other important inquiries. Indeed, It has done very good work, but the second report is memorable for a number of reasons not least of which are the evidence taken from hon. Members and the depth in which we investigated the subject.
I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for the way in which he has chaired the Committee during this Parliament and while the report was being produced. Furthermore, it is a privilege to speak in this debate while standing next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whose speeches in the House I have always admired. His words just now recalled to my mind a visit that he made some 30 years ago—he will probably not remember it—to a Labour party function in my constituency. When we spoke after the event, I could not have imagined standing beside him now, and I shall remember today if for no other reason than that.
I am convinced of the need for change, which is clearly set out in the report. To that extent, I disagree with the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The investigation was thorough, and the written and oral evidence submitted to us reflected the different views expressed in the House—not only during the inquiry itself, but as points of order and during our discussions following Madam Speaker's announcement.
What struck me most clearly while those views were being expressed way that the election of the Speaker had become more important to Back Benchers during the past 30 years. That is a sound reason for us to examine the procedure that it involves. Notwithstanding the contribution made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and others, the need for us to do so emerges clearly from detailed analysis of the report. In my view, the proposed changes will strengthen the role of Speaker, as its authority will derive from Members of Parliament. I believe that there is little support for returning to the system that prevailed early last century, when the influence of the usual channels and the political parties manifested itself in the way in which candidates were dealt with. I would be surprised if Back Benchers ever wanted to return to that position. It is a good thing that that important view is entrenched in the Procedure Committee's proposals.
Two controversial matters have been dwelt on this afternoon. First, many important issues were raised about nominations and the way in which the debate on the candidates should be conducted in the House. The views that were expressed will help to develop a procedure that ensures that the election will be a little more streamlined. I am not suggesting that we should cut short the time spent on the election, but I hope that the debate about it will be focused and that all candidates will be able to speak. Other hon Members have mentioned the importance of the occasion, but the fact remains that last time the House was not as packed at the end of the debate as it was at the beginning. I believe that there should be


greater interest during the whole debate. If it continues for four or five hours, that will be all to the good. I think that it will still be a most important occasion.
The question that was going through my mind was whether the ballot should be secret or open. The issue is finely balanced and there are good reasons both for and against. That became clear during the Procedure Committee's deliberations, in which two arguments were advanced in favour of keeping the open ballot. The slippery slope argument was advanced in the evidence given by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who suggested that there would be pressure for other matters to be dealt with secretly once the principle of a secret ballot had bean conceded. I reject that argument, as I do not think that hon. Members would want to extend such secrecy. Indeed, there would rightly be an outcry outside this place if we ever did so. Little evidence was given in support of that argument, other than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
Another argument was advanced on the basis of historical convention. As Members of Parliament are representatives of constituents and constituencies, any decision that we take should be recorded so that those who elect us can see how we vote. I believe that that is a stronger argument. If we are to move away from that principle, there must be strong arguments for doing so. That is why I should like to summarise the arguments that were advanced in favour of a secret ballot. The decision on electing a Speaker is unique because the role does not relate to any particular policy decisions that will affect our constituents. It has been argued that the choice of Speaker is therefore a decision that relates only to how we organise our affairs.
It has also been suggested that the current system allows hon. Members to be pressurised. There are arguments for and against that view, with regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave some interesting evidence. He said that he was in favour of a secret ballot because he did not want to vote against anybody. In other words, he said that we are all friends in the House and that he voted for individuals on that basis. Of course, there might be pressures in both directions, which is why I believe that there is a sound argument for adopting the principle of secret ballot in this particular case, although I appreciate that the matter is finely balanced. Indeed, the Committee recognised that, which is why it said in its report that the matter should be one for the House.
The second controversial issue that has been dealt with relates to the voting system and the question whether to introduce an alternative system or to conduct an exhaustive ballot. The Committee favoured two particular views about the exhaustive ballot. First, it accepted that such a ballot would enable candidates who obtained a small number of votes to exit the process at the first stage. Although candidates can take soundings, they will not necessarily be aware of how much support they have until the first round is completed. An exhaustive ballot would ensure that such candidates could withdraw their nominations immediately. Secondly, an exhaustive ballot would enable hon. Members to assess support for candidates and adjust their preferences accordingly in the second round. I believe that that would be of some help, although I acknowledge that the two views are finely balanced. The Electoral Reform Society gave evidence in

support of the exhaustive ballot, which is contained in an annexe to the report. For those reasons, the Procedure Committee accepted the balance of those arguments.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke about the need for deep consideration of the future role of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. The evidence given by Liberal Democrats supported that view, for which there was much backing in the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the Committee should consider the matter, and the suggestion that it should be a future priority has my full support

Mr. Crispin Blunt: It has been an afternoon for farewell speeches, some perhaps more voluntary than others. It is therefore a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), who is defending a majority of 2,770, and who may discover in a few days' or weeks' time that he, too, made a farewell speech this afternoon. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the debate lacked edge, and I am trying to provide it.
On a more serious note, I concur with the point of the hon. Member for Upminster that the subject of our debate has become more important to Back Benchers over the past 30 years. That is a sign of hope in the institution. The Liaison Committee report on "Shifting the Balance" and the Procedure Committee's report on electing a Speaker are signs of a change in Back Benchers' attitude towards how much they will take from the Executive.
People look back to a golden age. but let us consider what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, which some hon. Members experienced in this place, when the usual channels sorted things out. The procedures used in 1972 exemplified the way in which the House was run in those days. I therefore congratulate the Procedure Committee on the report and support the broad thrust of its recommendations.
I should perhaps apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary. We held a debate a few weeks ago about the timetable. At some ungodly hour, I said that the time allowed for today's debate was insufficient. It appears that the hon. Gentleman will be proved right and I will be proved wrong. That may have something to do with the scheduling of a debate on free-vote business on a Thursday afternoon, but it is up to hon. Members who care about this place to attend and speak up for it. There is no more important decision in this institution than the election of a Speaker.
I take slight issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about secret ballots at various stages in the cycle of electing a Speaker. There is a difference between the election of a new Speaker, the re-election of a sitting Speaker and a censure motion on a sitting Speaker. I want to use myself as an example.
I rose when the Father of the House sought to put the question on electing our current Speaker. I believed that there should be a Division. I felt strongly that as far as possible every candidate should be subjected to the same test under the rules that pertained then. I wanted to apply the test that I applied to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to every other candidate, to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn. Ultimately, I could not do that


because by the time every other candidate had been eliminated, the choice was between voting for the right hon. Gentleman and voting for nobody.
It has been stated with certainty in the report and the debate that the current Speaker would have been elected under different arrangements. That is wrong; such an assumption should be tested. We cannot know what would have happened if your name, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had appeared not in the first amendment but in the main motion, and if the current Speaker's name had appeared in an amendment rather than the motion. We shall never know because hon. Members made different judgments according to the candidates lower down the list whom they supported. I welcome the report's recommendations on the voting procedure because it is now palpably fair.
Our main consideration is whether we should hold a secret or an open ballot. I strongly believe that it should be secret. As I rose at the crucial moment and triggered the vote on that occasion, I suppose that I should be most paranoid about influence from the Chair. I want to put it clearly on the record that I have been treated fairly by the Speaker. I do not believe that he has over-corrected and called me more often than he should, or that he has called me less often than he should. As hon. Members have said, one would expect those who hold the office of Speaker to be blind to the opinions of hon. Members about their candidacy. However, we cannot know whether that is the case.
I cannot know whether being called last on several occasions to ask questions about a statement is a reflection of my lack of seniority in the House or of the occupant of the Chair's bias against me. On several other occasions, I have been called extremely early to ask questions on statements. That is simply part of the cut and thrust in the House, and I do not believe that I have been discriminated against.
Paragraph 55 of the report states:
The Clerk of the House told us that there was a concern that 'a vote cast against the Speaker is remembered', although he added that he did not know whether this was 'paranoia' or had a foundation in fact.
Ultimately, we shall never know. It would therefore be better to conduct a secret ballot simply to avoid such a suspicion.
A secret ballot is preferable also because of the influence of the usual channels. It has been reported to me that a Labour Member, who was elected in 1997, was overheard having a conversation with a Whip on the election of the Speaker. The hon. Member asked for guidance and the Whip reportedly said, "Well, it's a free vote; we can vote for anybody as long as it's not Gwyneth." Such influence is unwelcome, but it exists.
On the point about setting a precedent and establishing a secret ballot for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the election of Speaker is an issue for the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we should be accountable to our electorate in this matter. I disagree. Hon. Members should be able to exercise their

judgment free from influence from the usual channels, and from fear about the attitude of the occupant of the Chair as a consequence of their actions.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that a decision that he makes as an elected Member of Parliament is no business of the people who sent him here?

Mr. Blunt: I do not say that it is no business of theirs. We must make a judgment, and I believe that it is important that I am able to make the most important decision on House of Commons business free from influence.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend invite the House to consider carefully the fact that Australia, Canada, South Africa. France, Italy, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales hold secret ballots when electing their Presiding Officers? The Committee took evidence from other Commonwealth countries and other democracies.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. When people examine the case carefully and have the opportunity to restructure systems, they will favour secret ballots. Decisions about the chairmanship of an assembly are for its members This is the one occasion on which I believe that there should be a secret ballot. There is a distinction between this and other occasions, such as those on which the Speaker is to be re-elected, or on which there is a vote of censure against the Speaker.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend argues for a secret ballot. If he were to get his way, and one of his constituents were to write to him after the election of a Speaker and ask him which way he had voted, would he tell them? If so, why is he arguing for a secret ballot?

Mr. Blunt: The answer is no, I would not tell them. I would tell them that this was a secret ballot and that I had exercised my judgment as to a matter concerning the House. The reason why it should be secret is precisely that I would not then be accountable for it to the electorate.
In the end, this is a question of judgment. Other hon. Members will come to a different judgment, saying that we should not break with precedent and that we have to be accountable for absolutely everything that we do. I believe that, in this one respect, we owe it to ourselves to be able to take the power to ourselves to make this decision free from the influence from the usual channels, and without being influenced by what the consequences might be for the future occupants of the Chair. That is why I hope that the amendment in the name of the Minister, which would delete the word "secret", will not be carried.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I was prompted to rise to my feet by the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said that when the House was at its clubbiest, it was at its worst, as if every speech that we make must drip with


vitriol. It is not like that. I think that this has been a very good debate, and I completely disagree with almost everything that I heard from my right hon. Friend.
I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the influence of the Whips. He said that he had heard one of the Whips say to a Member who came into the House in the new intake, "It's a free vote, but don't vote for Gwyneth." The Whips have an influence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, as a member of the Liaison Committee, put his name to a report that made it perfectly clear that hon. Members were kept off Select Committees because of their views. That must, therefore, be my right hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Kaufman: I did not put my name to that report.

Mr. Prentice: I was under the impression that the report of the Liaison Committee was a unanimous report, agreed by all the Committee members. From the documentation that I read, I was quite sure that that was the case, but perhaps other hon. Members will intervene to correct me.

Mr. Kaufman: I honestly know what I did, and I know what I think. I did not put my name to that report.

Mr. Prentice: Well, there you go. I have been going round telling people that if an old Labour warhorse such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton could put his name to the report, it must carry some weight.

Mr. Sheldon: May I clarify the position? The report was on the agenda of the House, but my right hon. Friend did not attend.

Mr. Kaufman: What is more, I did not sign the motion. There was nothing to sign.

Mr. Prentice: Of course I give way to my right hon. Friend!

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had a copy of the report. The fact that he was unable to, or saw fit not to, attend the meeting when it was agreed was his decision, but he did not send any amendment or objection to the report to the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that that is not the report that we are debating.

Mr. Prentice: I am not taking any more interventions on this point, Mr. Speaker. I want to get to my main point, but I was distracted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee on producing this excellent report. I agree with it all, and I think that the House ought to endorse it and support it. Exhaustive ballots are not new: they are part of the Labour party's internal election mechanism, and I feel wholly comfortable with them.
The question of the secret ballot seems to be exercising Members' minds. I agree, not for the first time, with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrats, that the election of the Speaker is unique. A secret ballot need not be seen as a slippery slope that would lead to secret ballots on other policy issues. If that were the case, I would speak out against the proposal. The election of the Speaker is unique and the ballot should be secret.
I do not want to sound prissy, but if the message were passed down that the Prime Minister or leading members of the Cabinet were hostile to a particular candidate and did not want to see that person elected Speaker, an hon. Member looking for preferment or a job in the Government—perhaps if he or she were ambitious and wanted to become a Minister—might think twice about voting against the perceived preference of, say, the Prime Minister.
When the Leader of the House made it clear that she was in favour of candidates alternating between the political parties, alarm bells rang. Many Labour Members thought that that was the Leader of the House speaking by proxy for the Government, and were, I am sure, determined not to be caught up in the notion that we should alternate between parties. They may have been persuaded by the letter in, I think, The Times, penned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. Alternatively—I am not being personal when I say this—they may have been persuaded by the fact that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not vote for the Labour candidate, Betty Boothroyd, in the 1992 election. I do not know.
The Government are generally anything but neutral. In my experience, the Government of the day have a view on everything. Matters come before the Modernisation Committee on which the Government are supposedly neutral: the Government are not neutral on them. If someone were to propose—as I did, to the Modernisation Committee—that private Members' Bills should be moved from the ghetto of Fridays to Wednesday mornings, when the Chamber is empty, the Government might say that they were neutral on the issue. Like hell they are. They have a position on everything. I am sure the Government would also have a position on who should occupy your Chair, Mr. Speaker.
The report touches on the hustings that I organised. There was a tremendous pressure for change. When the number of candidates ballooned from five to seven, eight, 11 and 12, I asked myself why we were getting so many candidates. The speakership brings instant celebrity, nationwide recognition, a nice house and probably quite a big salary, but something has happened recently. It might have something to do with the way in which Betty Boothroyd carried out her role as Speaker, but no one envisaged that so many candidates would compete for the speakership. Within a few hours, down on the Terrace, I had more than 100 names of Members—more than one sixth of the membership of the House of Commons—calling for the system to be changed and for an opportunity to quiz the individual candidates.
Under the old system—the present system, until we change it—we could never hear from the candidates, which was an absurdity. I also found it an absurdity that only nine of the 12 candidates for Speaker participated in the hustings, which were conducted in a very comradely, collegiate way. Nothing that was said embarrassed


anyone; nothing that was written in any of the nine so-called manifestos that were sent out would have embarrassed anyone. I thought that the hustings were a worthwhile exercise. We shall not need hustings in future, because the proposals made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield include the opportunity for every candidate to speak here in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
I would like to underline to my colleagues on this side of the House who have not quite made up their minds the fact that we need not fear the secret ballot. It is not the beginning of a slippery slope, and I hope that the House will endorse the Procedure Committee's report.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be called in this important debate. Indeed, there is nothing more important in this House than who is elected Speaker. One of my forebears was Speaker, from 1943 to 1952. When he was elected Speaker, it was through the usual channels, and he was unopposed. He had a very difficult time because this Chamber had been bombed and the sittings were transferred to the House of Lords, and then in 1945 the Labour party had a huge majority, largely consisting of new Members who did not respect the authority of the Speaker. In 1950 a Labour Government were elected with a majority of six, and in 1951 the Conservatives had a majority of 65. Throughout that time Mr. Churchill thought that he was still Prime Minister, and behaved with disdain towards my forebear in his role as Speaker.
Whoever is elected Speaker is the guardian not only of the House but of Back-Bench rights. That is the most important thing to bear in mind. It is important that we select and vote on the best possible candidates, and I argue as strongly as I can that we should have an exhaustive and open ballot.
If we are honourable Members, as we all purport to be, there should be no difference between the way we vote in secret and the way we vote when the vote is open and recorded. My intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) got to the kernel of the matter. I am quite prepared to look anybody—including you, Mr. Speaker—in the eye and tell them how I voted and why I voted as I did. As it happens, I did not vote for you in the final vote; I abstained. But it does not matter how I voted; even if I had voted against you, I would expect you to treat me in the same way, and I would have exactly the same regard for you, whether I had voted in an open ballot or a secret ballot. That is the way things ought to be.
In this Parliament, the Executive are getting more and more power. The standard and stature of the Speaker is therefore critical. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you will be Speaker for a long time, and that you will have to make landmark judgments against this Government, or any other colour of Government, to ensure that the House and its traditions are fully upheld, and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament have a full say in how they control the Executive.
We need to examine the rules about how we elect our Speaker very carefully. Those who argue for a secret ballot are arguing for something that they would not be prepared to uphold in public to their constituents. That is the nub and kernel of the matter

Mr. John Bercow: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate, to welcome the report and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
As usual, I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I do not agree with him. This has been a good and constructive debate, with worthwhile contributions from both sides of the House, and it is singularly appropriate that it should have been graced with what might prove to be the valedictory address to the House by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
I first read the right hon. Gentleman's writings when I was 17. I recall reading "Arguments for Socialism", and subsequently "Arguments for Democracy". Both those tomes are on my bookshelves at home. I was not particularly persuaded by either of them, although I was rather more impressed by the latter than by the former. There is a widely held view that the right hon. Gentleman is both the greatest living socialist, and the greatest living parliamentarian, in this country. When we hear him contribute to our debates we all, whatever our views, realise how much the House will lose when he ceases to be a Member of it.
My second point is that, having reflected carefully on the arguments, I have—not for the first time, and probably not for the last—changed my mind. I had some sympathy for the idea of the secret ballot, but the more I have listened to the arguments deployed, the less persuaded of the case for it I have become.
It is always a joy to listen to the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), but I strongly disagree with him. His invocation of the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was singularly unpersuasive. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but the argument seems to me to come down to this: if it were a matter of "he more effective operation of the House, or the more satisfactory service of our constituents—although I know not how that could result from a closed ballot—there might be a good case for a secret ballot. However, if, in the final analysis, we are merely anxious to protect ourselves and to devise a mechanism to appease our own sensitivities, that is not a good argument for a closed ballot.
I am in a similar category to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Indeed, I voted against two rather prominent candidates for the speakership. First, I voted against you Mr. Speaker. I make no apology for that; I was perfectly entitled to do so. You have been scrupulously fair ever since, and the matter has never been discussed. I also voted against the candidature of one of the Deputy Speakers, Sir Alan Haselhurst. I make no apology for that, either; I was perfectly entitled to do it.
I would not seek to cloak my decisions, or the reasons for them, either from my colleagues or from the electorate. There is a powerful case for stating what we believe and being prepared to defend it.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. What is it about us as hon. Members that means that we do not


need the protection, in respect of the vote for an individual, that we give our electors when they choose whether to send us here?

Mr. Bercow: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman, because he has raised an important point. When the electorate vote they are deciding who they want to represent them. They are not the custodians of public office, so their entitlement to vote in secret, and not to be obliged to reveal their decision or to defend it, should be absolute. In that respect, we are in a different position: we are custodians of public office.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Bercow: I shall not give way, simply because the Front Benchers are about to respond to the debate. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman.
We do not have the right to protect ourselves in that way. I go for an open vote. We should explain our decisions and defend them, and then be prepared to be judged by them.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating debate, and I found myself quite troubled by it. I certainly found myself disagreeing with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said about the authority of the House being supreme—a matter that I hope to be able to pursue in the Tea Room.
Also rather dangerously, I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he said that what we were called upon to decide today was not a private matter. I entirely agree with him about that; this goes well beyond the bounds of this House, and beyond questions about being clubbable.
We have had a varied debate, and in the time available it would be difficult to do justice to all the contributors. In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I may add that it has been customary in this House to say that the right hon. Gentleman has usually been wrong about some of the great issues facing the country. That is a bit unfair to him, and I hope that on this occasion he was wrong when he said that this was likely to be the last time that he would speak in the House. His contributions will be greatly missed.
There are several small points and several themes that can be picked out of the debate. The themes have crossed parties. Anybody coming into the House and listening to the debate would find it impossible to see a particular line, or a majority view, emerging in any part of the House—except, perhaps, on the Liberal Benches, where the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has, I think, been the only representative of his party to speak.
I have a few small points to make. The key issue is about simplifying the procedures by which the Speaker is chosen. In that respect, I find a great deal to commend in the report presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), as the procedures used in your election, Mr. Speaker, were unnecessarily ponderous

and did the House little credit. I wish to draw attention to some of the elements in the motion that caused me concern.
First, there is the question of nominations. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield made the powerful point that the selection of the Speaker is, in part, a matter of democracy in action. However, although the intention that Speakers should be elected with a consensus of support across the House is entirely commendable, the requirement that there be a cross-party nomination procedure before a candidate can stand introduces a fetter on democracy.
I hope that any hon. Member putting his or her name forward—or who is asked to do so—would command cross-party support, but what would happen if 450 members of a party with a huge majority in the House wanted a specific person as Speaker, and the other parties did not? Would those 450 hon. Members be prevented from having that choice? That is the potential effect of the relevant provision in the motion.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield accepts that I fully understand the intention behind the report, but I find the conclusion slightly strange. I draw attention to it, as I think that it may cause problems in the future, and that the House may need to look at it again at some time in the future.
It is notable that the procedure is not used in the re-election of a former Speaker. I have no difficulty with that, but I am worried that the nomination proposals would be a fetter on the democratic procedures of the House.
The other matter that has exercised the House is whether the ballot should be secret. I have discussed the matter with some of my hon. Friends, and I have been impressed by the Canadian system. There, the ballot is secret, and the voting numbers in each vote while the decision is being reached are not revealed. That has the advantage that it prevents tactical voting, as it invites people to make a choice and stick to it. It also means that people do not run around between ballots trying to decide who has the advantage.
Without such a provision, I find it difficult to see the advantage of secrecy. I shall therefore vote against the proposal for holding secret ballots, as I believe that the people who vote for me would be entitled to know what I decided to do. If they asked me, I would feel constrained to tell them.
I end on the question of flummery: we are lucky that we have not had to discuss that today, as I am sure that hon. Members would have differing views. Some of the ceremonial in the House is very important, and if we ever came to consider it, I hope that the views of all hon. Members would be heard.
With that caveat, I welcome the report. I shall be interested to discover what the House decides

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The clearest thing to have emerged from the debate is that the Committee and its members have done the House a great service in providing a very thorough, thoughtful and excellent report. It has given the House a good framework for discussion.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Committee, spoke of the support given by his team, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member


for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) will win many more elections and be in the House for many years to come. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has been very involved in the Committee's work, although he did not have the opportunity to speak today.
When I first read the report, I was struck by the questionnaire in appendix 1. There were 130 responses to the Committee's canvass of opinion, and they differed greatly. However, despite a very tight schedule, the report has provided an excellent framework for discussion.
The tone of the debate, which involved hon. Members of all parties, has been that change is necessary and that there is broad support for the report. Two caveats need to be entered, however. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) warned us to take change cautiously and slowly, and said that we should not rush into it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the report was clubbish and cosy. However, I think that my right hon. Friend realised that his objections were shared by too few hon. Members to warrant pressing the matter to a vote.
A number of small questions were posed. The right hon. Member for East Devon asked who would chair the election proceedings. I can tell him that the existing Standing Orders specify the Father of the House.
A number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), pointed out the importance of paragraph 86 of the report, which is headed "Future Inquiries". In that paragraph, the Committee recommends that the role of the Speaker, and of the Deputy Speakers, should be examined at some point in the future.
A number of hon. Members said that the rights of the House against the legislature were being eroded. I have read the history books, and I know that that is a persistent argument that has run throughout the ages. However, the report makes it clear that a subsequent Committee may well revisit the matter.
I remind the House of the importance of the Speaker, and of what the Duke of Wellington said about the fear inspired by his men—that they may not have frightened the enemy but that, by God, they frightened him. As a member of the Government Front Bench, I can tell the House that my colleagues and I are frightened of the Speaker, and that we take what he says very seriously indeed. A good deal of discussion takes place to ensure that the procedures of the House are followed properly.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about flummery, and I confess that, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I am a reluctant moderniser. I, too, would be sad to see some of our ceremonies go.
Two major issues came before the House today, and the first was the question of exhaustive as opposed to alternative voting. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on behalf of his party colleagues, argued the point strongly. The matter was discussed in Committee, and was voted on. I am in favour of an exhaustive ballot, and I think that that was the tone of the debate today.
The second major issue had to do with open as opposed to secret ballots. The hon. Member for North Cornwall chided me that my amendment was not in order. I think

that it is, as it is the first appearance of the word "secret" in the text of the Standing Order which the amendment would change. If the amendment is agreed, the titles would change automatically.
However, the substance of the argument is the question whether the ballot should be open or secret. Again, the Committee considered the matter and it has asked the House as a whole to do the same. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I take a very principled position on the matter. I do not want us to go down what has been described as a slippery slope, and I hope that my hon. Friend presses the matter to a vote, as I believe that the House will give good support to the proposal for open ballots.
It is possible that two farewell speeches have been made this afternoon. The right hon. Member for East Devon did not call his contribution that, but he is nonpareil in the work that he has done with regard to the procedures of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has got himself a good redundancy deal. He is going outside the House to take part in active politics, because that is where the real change occurs. Along with my right hon. Friend, I know that the green movement is stronger outside the House. However, he told us that he is coming back to use the Library, so he has got the best of both worlds.
This report is the best of both worlds. Its recommendations ensure that our long tradition of independent Speakers will continue.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 84.

Division No. 165]
[4 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Goggins, Paul


Allen, Graham
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Beggs, Roy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael 


Bell, Martin (Tatton) 
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) 


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam 


Bercow, John
Jamieson, David 


Betts, Clive
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald 


Brady, Graham
Khabra, Piara S 


Brown, Russell(Dumfries)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browne, Desmond
Leigh, Edward 


Burnett, John
Levitt, Tom


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Linton, Martin 



McDonagh, Siobhain


Clelland, David 
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown,Geoffrey 
Mclsaac, Shona 


Clwyd, Ann
McNulty, Tony 


Corbett, Robin 
Mactaggart, Fiona


Cranston, Ross 
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dismore, Andrew 
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter 


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Miller, Andrew


Efford, Clive
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter 
Olner, Bill


Faber, David
Osbome, Ms Sandra


Foulkes, George
Paterson, Owen 


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pearson, Ian 


Galloway, George 
Pike, Peter L 


Garnier, Edward
Pond, Chris






Rapson, Syd
Touhiq, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tynan, Bill


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wells, Bowen


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
White Brian


Spellar,John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)


Swayne,Desmond
Wyatt Derek


Syms,Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. David Winnick.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Anderson. Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Jenkin, Be[...]nard



Johnson Smith,


Austin, John
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Bayley, Hugh
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Beard, Nigel
King, Ms [...]ona (Bethnal Green)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Kirkwood, Archy


Begg, Miss Anne
Laxton, Bo[...]


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Loughton, [...]im


Boswell, Tim
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bruce,Ian(S Dorset)
McWalter Tony


Butterfill,John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Caplin,Ivor
Maxton, John


Chapman. Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Michie, Mrs. Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Moran, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Ottaway, Richard


Connarty, Michael
Pollard, Kerry


Cotter, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Cox, Tom
Prentice, N s Bridget (Lewisham E)


Darvill,Keith
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Davidson, Ian
Rendel, David


Dawson, Hilton
Robathan, Andrew


Dawson Hilton
Robathan, Andrew (Faversham)


Drown, Ms Julia 
Rowe, Andrew(Faversham)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruddock,Joan


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Shephered, Richard


Gerrard, Neil
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gibson, Dr Ian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Stevenson George


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Tyler, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A
Vis, Dr Rudi


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Welsh, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Wilkinson, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wintelon, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Heppell, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Horam, John



Hutton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mr. Crispin Blunt and


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) This House approves the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01, Election of a Speaker (House of Commons Paper No. 40) relating to the election of a Speaker.

(2) Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker) be amended by leaving out paragraph (4); and the title of the Standing Order shall be 'Election of the Speaker: Member presiding'; and

(3) The following new Standing Orders No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) and No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot) be made:

Re-election of former Speaker

1A. (1) If at the commencement of a Parliament the Member who was Speaker at the dissolution of the previous Parliament is returned to the House, the Member presiding in accordance with Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker: Member presiding) shall, when the House meets to proceed with the choice of a Speaker, ascertain whether the former Speaker is willing to be chosen as Speaker, and, the former Speaker having submitted himself to the House, shall call upon a Member to move that he do take the Chair of this House as Speaker; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(2) If the question is agreed to, the former Speaker shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.
(3) If the question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the House shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot).

Election of Speaker by secret ballot

1B. (1) If the question put in accordance with Standing Order No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) has been negatived, and on any other occasion when it is necessary to proceed with the choice of a new Speaker, the election shall be by secret ballot.

(2) Preparatory arrangements for a ballot shall be made under the supervision of the Clerk of the House.

(3) (a) Nominations of candidates shall be in writing and shall be received by the Clerk of the House between half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock in the morning on the day on which the House is to elect a Speaker.

(b) Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve nor more than fifteen Members, of whom not fewer than three shall he Members elected to the House as members of any party other than that to which the candidate belongs or members of no party. No Member shall sign more than one such statement and if any Member does so, his signature shall no longer be valid.

(c) As soon as practicable following the close of nominations, lists of the candidates shall be placed in the Members' lobby and published.

(4) If only one Member is nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above, the Member presiding shall, when the House meets to elect a Speaker, invite the Member so nominated to submit himself to the House, and shall then put ford with the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(5) Paragraphs (6) to (13) of this Order shall apply if two or more Members are nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above.

(6) When the House meets, the order in which candidates may address the House shall be determined by lot; the Member presiding shall then invite each candidate to address the House; and after all candidates have been given an opportunity to speak, the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed to a ballot.

(7) The Member presiding may not vote in any ballot.

(8) (a) A ballot shall take place in the lobbies unless the Member presiding directs otherwise.

(b) Each Member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper bearing the names of the candidates listed in alphabetical order.

(c) Each such Member may vote for only one candidate on the ballot paper.

(d) A ballot shall be declared closed after the expiration of half an hour and counting shall take place under arrangements made by the Clerk of the House.

(e) The Member presiding shall have discretion to vary the timings given in this Order and power to give final directions on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of a ballot or from an individual ballot paper.

(9) As soon as practicable after the votes have been counted the Member presiding shall announce to the House the numbers of votes cast for each candidate.

(10) If a candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(11) If no candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed forthwith to a further ballot to which paragraph (12) below shall apply.

(12) In any further ballot no new nominations may be received and the names of—

(a) the candidate who received the fewest votes in the previous ballot;

(b) any candidate who received less than five per cent. of the votes cast in the previous ballot; and

(c) any candidate who, within ten minutes of the announcement in the House of the result of the previous ballot, shall have notified the Member presiding of his intention to withdraw,

shall be removed from the ballot paper, except that where two or more candidates received the same number of votes, their names shall remain on the ballot paper unless paragraph (b) applies.

(13) If the effect of paragraph (12) above is to remove from the ballot paper the name of every candidate except one, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(14) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 10 (Wednesday sittings) and 11 (Friday sittings), on any day on which the House meets to elect a Speaker, it shall meet at half-past Two o'clock.

(b) No amendment may be offered to the question that a Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(c) If that question is agreed to, that Member shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.

(d) If that question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following clay at half-past Two o'clock, and the provisions of paragraph (3) above shall apply in respect of a fresh ballot.

Re-election of former Speaker

1A.(1) If at the commencement of a parliament the Member who was Speaker at the dissolution of the previous parliament is returned to the House, the Member presiding in accordance with Standing Order No.1 (Election of the Speaker: Member presiding) shall,when the House meets to proceed with the choice of a Speaker,ascertain whether the former Speaker is willing to be chosen as Speaker,and,the former Speaker having submitted himself to the House,shall call upon a Member to move that he do take the chair of this House as Speaker: and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(2) If the question is agreed to, the former Speaker shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.

(3) If the question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the House shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot).

Election of Speaker by secret ballot

1B. (1) If the question put in accordance with Standing Order No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) has been negatived, and on any other occasion when it is necessary to proceed with the choice of a new Speaker, the election shall be by secret ballot.

(2) Preparatory arrangements for a ballot shall be made under the supervision of the Clerk of the House.

(3) (a) Nominations of candidates shall be in writing and shall be received by the Clerk of the House between half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock in the morning on the day on which the House is to elect a Speaker.

(b) Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve nor more than fifteen Members, of whom not fewer than three shall be Members elected to the House as members of any party other than that to which the candidate belongs or members of no party. No Member shall sign more than one such statement and if any Member does so, his signature shall no longer be valid.

(c) As soon as practicable following the close of nominations, lists of the candidates shall be placed in the Members' lobby and published.

(4) If only one Member is nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above, the Member presiding shall, when the House meets to elect a Speaker, invite the Member so nominated to submit himself to the House, and shall then put forthwith the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(5) Paragraphs (6) to (13) of this Order shall apply if two or more Members are nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above.

(6) When the House meets, the order in which candidates may address the House shall be determined by lot; the Member presiding shall then invite each candidate to address the House; and after all candidates have been given an opportunity to speak, the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed to a ballot.

(7) The Member presiding may not vote in any ballot.

(8) (a) A ballot shall take place in the lobbies unless the Member presiding directs otherwise.

(b) Each Member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper bearing the names of the candidates listed in alphabetical order.

(c) Each such Member may vote for only one candidate on the ballot paper.

(d) A ballot shall be declared closed after the expiration of half an hour and counting shall take place under arrangements made by the Clerk of the House.

(e) The Member presiding shall have discretion to vary the timings given in this Order and power to give final directions on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of a ballot or from an individual ballot paper.

(9) As soon as practicable after the votes have been counted the Member presiding shall announce to the House the numbers of votes cast for each candidate.

(10) If a candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(11) If no candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed forthwith to a further ballot to which paragraph (12) below shall apply.

(12) In any further ballot no new nominations may be received and the names of—

(a) the candidate who received the fewest votes in the previous ballot;

(b) any candidate who received less than five per cent. of the votes cast in the previous ballot;and

(c) any candidate who, within ten minutes of the announcement in the House of the result of the previous ballot, shall have notified the Member presiding of his intention to withdraw,

shall be removed from the ballot paper, except that where two or more candidates received the same number of votes, their names shall remain on the ballot paper unless paragraph (b) applies.

(13) If the effect of paragraph (12) above is to remove from the ballot paper the name of every candidate except one, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(14) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 10 (Wednesday sittings) and 11 (Friday sittings), on any day on which the House meets to elect a Speaker, it shall meet at half-past Two o'clock.

(b) No amendment may be offered to the question that a Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

(c) If that question is agreed to, that Member shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.

(d) If that question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the provisions of paragraph (3) above shall apply in respect of a fresh ballot.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: The House is to consider the Kent County Council Bill followed by the Medway Council Bill. It may be helpful if I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the two Bills and the amendments thereto are virtually identical. The Chair will allow reference to the Medway Council Bill while we are debating the Kent County Council Bill, but thereafter any debate on the Medway Council Bill should be limited to matters peculiar to that Bill

Clause 2

APPOINTED DAY

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) to move amendment No. 15, which is grouped with amendments Nos. 18 and 16.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I seek clarification, Mr. Speaker. I have been told that the amendments are acceptable to the promoters of the Bill. Is that true?

Mr. Paul Clark: As the sponsor of the Bill, I inform the House that the promoters are willing to accept this group of amendments.

Mr. Wyatt: Do I need to move the amendment, Mr. Speaker? I am unsure of the form.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman needs to move the amendment. Other Members may wish to speak to it.

Mr. Wyatt: I wish to move the amendment formally, Mr. Speaker.
Amendments made: No. 15 in page 2, line 6 leave out
'a newspaper circulating in the county' 
and insert—
'at least two newspapers circulating in the county and at least one national art and antiques trade periodica'. 
No. 18, in page 2, line 11 leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
No. 16, in page 2, line 15, after 'newspaper', insert—
'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 4

INTERPRETATION OF PART 2

Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No.1, in page 3, leave out line 42.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: promoters amendment No. 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out 'his business' and insert—
'the business in respect of which he is registered'.


Promoters amendment No. 3, in clause 8, page 7, line 18, at end insert—
'(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or 
(f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.
Amendment No. 41, in clause 11, page 8, line 11, after 'trading', insert 'in the county'.

Mr. Clark: I shall be brief, as the three promoters amendments are all linked and will rectify a problem with book dealers. The intention of the Bill was to exempt such dealers from legislation, in so far as the business is related to books. As drafted, the effect of the Bills on dealers who sell other goods, for example, maps or prints, would be to require records of the transactions relating to books also to be kept.
These promoters amendments would make it clear that no record-keeping would be required for books, even if the dealer is registered to sell other types of second-hand goods. The information held by Kent police did not reveal that there was a problem with stolen books. In fact, only five thefts of valuable books were recorded in a 12-month period. In addition, no consumer complaints about second-hand books can be found on the records, so there does not seem to be a problem with that side of the trade.

Mr. Wyatt: I seek clarification about the wording. I am confused as to whether the "squat trading" referred to in clause 11(1)(c) refers to trading in the county. We hope that it does and, if so, I am happy to a accept that.

Mr. Clark: The promoters are willing to accept amendment No. 41 as they have no problems with it.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

REGISTRATION OF DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS

Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 19, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 26, in page 4, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.
Amendment No. 45, in clause 12, page 10, line 33, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.
Amendment No. 46, in clause 12, page 10, line 33, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
'the business address or business telephone number'.
Amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 10, line 39, leave out 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.

Mr. Wyatt: My only concern is that we do not want the antiques trade to be charged for registration. We want

to ensure that there will be no charge to traders and that the council will pay the charge. I understand that that is acceptable to the promoters.

Mr. Paul Clark: After some consideration, the promoters have decided that the amendments in the group are acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 26, in page 4 line 20, at end insert—
'(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 6

INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY REGISTERED DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS

Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 26, leave out (7) and insert (8).

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 42, leave out from 'entry' to 'by' in line 43.
Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 17, leave out '£10' and insert '£100'.
Promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'than' to end of line 19 and insert—
'the relevant amount'.
Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 23, at end insert—
'(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is— 
(a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
(b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies; 
or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'
Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
Promoters amendment No. 9, in line 36, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Amendment No. 33, line 36, leave out from 'amount' to end of line 44 and insert—
'is £500 or such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'jewellery, watches'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'photographic equipment'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 40, leave out musical instruments'.
Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 2, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 3, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 21, clause 7, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10)'.
Promoters amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 39, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 42, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 5, clause 12, leave out from 'him' to end of line 6.
Amendment No. 43, in page 10, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
Amendment No. 44, in page 10, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.

Mr. Clark: Amendments Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are drafting amendments as a consequence of various small issues that relate to changes elsewhere.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the levels and items required to be recorded by those involved in the second-hand trade. The Select Committee heard detailed evidence and arguments from the promoters, petitioners and their counsel, and witnesses over some 11 days, so detailed consideration was given. The Committee decided that the Bill should continue but with certain amendments, the most significant of which relates to the records which must be kept by registered dealers in second-hand goods. These two amendments relate to that.
Dealers are required to obtain the name and address of the person from whom the articles were acquired. An exemption is provided for articles which, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, will be sold or offered for sale at a price of less than £10. However, that is not to apply to any electrical or battery-powered goods or to any medium on or by which sound, images and other data may be stored and recorded. This is intended to reduce the bureaucracy, but will not exempt those low value items frequently sold, such as audiocassettes and CDs. It may appear to hon. Members that those are relatively insignificant items, but the recovery of smaller items often leads police to those involved in thefts of more valuable items.
The petitioners argued that antiques should be exempt or that the threshold for record-keeping should be raised to £50. The problem is that antique dealers also trade in works of art and collectors' items, and the existing legal definitions to be found in VAT legislation are too complex and would make the legislation unworkable. Since then, the promoters have introduced an amendment which tackles the problem differently, but will raise the threshold for most antiques to £50. Therefore, the proposals in amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are that the £10 threshold be retained for specified items similar to those requiring records when the dealer sells items for £100 or more. Again, the law of thresholds must be maintained for those items identified by the police as most frequently stolen.
Consequently, as the Bill stands, all electrical and battery-powered items will need to be recorded, together with items for use with electrical items such as CDs and computer games. That will remain the case for the reasons that I have outlined. All other items will need to be recorded if, in the view of the dealer when purchasing

them, they would be sold on for more than £10. The effect of our amendment is to raise the financial limit in respect of those goods.
The £10 limit will still apply to goods listed in the amendment, namely vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographical equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, firearms and gardening equipment. All other items, including most antiques, would not need to be recorded if their onward sale is believed to be at less than £50.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: If, as can happen, on closer inspection the article appears later to be worth a great deal more than £10, does it become an offence for the dealer to sell it for more than £10 if he or she has allowed the vendor to disappear without registering the provenance?

Mr. Clark: That is a valid question. Obviously, a judgment could be made and subsequently the item bought could be found to be more valuable than at first thought. The Bill Provides for that not to be a criminal offence. Clearly, if someone consistently undertook that line of defence, one would take the necessary action. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Wyatt: This is the trickiest part for antique traders, the group whom I represent. My comments relate specifically to page 5, lines 36 to 40.
When a house is cleared there are often between 3,000 and 4,000 objects. Their worth will vary from nothing to thousands and thousands of pounds. We are looking for an upper threshold. I wonder whether the sponsor will give some thought to that.
In the antiques trade it is unusual for jewellery, watches and musical instruments to be worth less than £100; the price tends to be much higher—so we are putting in the same bracket objects with different values. It is incredibly bureaucratic for dealers to have to list 4,000 or 5,000 objects, or even fewer, from a house. Will the hon. Gentleman consider raising the £100 threshold to £500?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend's amendments are opposed for the simple reason that the effect of raising that limit to £500 would be virtually to annihilate the basis of the Bill. As for excluding specifics, such as jewellery or watches, they are the very items that the police will say are stolen and passed on and that they want to follow through. We must remember that at the end of the day about £110 million worth of goods are stolen every year in Kent. That is last year's figure and it may well have gone up. Only about 25 per cent. is returned.
My hon. Friend's amendments would undermine the main provisions of the Bill, which are to put in place a paper trail that is useful to the police and trading standards officers, and will enable them to return the goods, bring to justice those who have stolen them, and provide some compensation to victims.

Mr. Wyatt: If the figure cited by my hon. Friend is correct, I guess that, it must be for recorded crime and that it must be a valuation. I do not know who carries out such valuations, but let us accept the figure. Less than


2 per cent. of that relates to the antiques trade. The provisions would increase bureaucracy and red tape for a fine profession. That will cause real damage to communities in Kent and Medway. The easiest solution would be to exempt the antiques trade. Will my hon. Friend consider that? The provision seems incredibly unfair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'his business' and insert—

'the business in respect of which he is registered'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 30.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient take the following amendments: No. 34, in page 6, line 3, after 'shall', insert 'not'.

No. 35, in page 6, line 4, leave out from 'county' to end of line 12.

Mr. Wyatt: My concern is that the provision applies to non-Kent crime. It is hard enough that it should apply even to Kent. Will the sponsor consider adding the word "not" to subsection (7), so that it reads:
Subsections (1) and (4) above shall not apply to transactions which take place outside the county.
That would seem to me to be an extension of the principle of the law. Will the sponsor reflect on that?

Mr. Paul Clark: We do not accept that. The simple reason is that if one takes away the requirement that purchases outside the county of Kent be recorded, a rogue trader could argue—when questioned about a certain item—that he or she had bought it outside the county. That excuse could be used by people who did not want to assist in providing the information required under the Bill. The claim that items were bought outside the county would be a simple way of overcoming the requirement to record the purchase. We cannot accept the amendment—to do so would negate the Bill and undermine its provisions.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'than' to end of line 19 and insert—
'the relevant amount'.
Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 23, at end insert—
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—
(a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
(b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;

or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'
Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
Promoters amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 36, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 2, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 3, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 21, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 7

OFFENCES UNDER PART 2

Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 39, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.

Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 42, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 8

EXEMPTIONS UNDER PART 2

Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
'(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
(f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 11

NOTICE OF OCCASIONAL SALES AND SQUAT TRADING

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 8, line 11, after 'trading', insert 'in the county'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 12

INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY HOLDER OF CERTAIN OCCASIONAL SALES

Amendments made:

No. 45, page 10, line 33, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.
No. 46, in page 10, line 33, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
'the business address or business telephone number'.
No. 47, in page 10, line 39, leave out 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 17

DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE

Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 12, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 13.
This provision relates to another tough matter for the antique dealers. There is an implication that dealers will be penalised if they do not know or cannot be certain of the information that they were given. For example, if the information is from a stolen credit card or a false driving licence, the dealer will be penalised. With the best will in the world, how is a dealer to know whether such documents have been stolen? It is a tough call to ask dealers to be responsible for that. Will the sponsor consider my amendment?

Mr. Paul Clark: The defence provided under the clause is extremely well precedented in national as well as local legislation—for example, in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and many other Acts, and all other private Bills would contain such a provision. The amendment could result in courts wasting time and it would allow the person charged with an offence to pass the blame on to a third party, without allowing the council or the police to check the circumstances before going to court. So court time would be wasted and the circumstances could not be checked thereafter.
The provisions are well documented elsewhere. People are not criminally liable if they have in place a generally good system and can prove that fact. The clause, as drafted, will not resolve the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).

Mr. Michael Fallon: If a group of dealers operates in a centre, one dealer may not be in the centre, or shop, on a particular day and may have to rely on the actions of another dealer. That is almost akin to a co-operative, and the dealers may watch one another's stalls and some of them may not go to the centre for two or three days, or two or three weeks. Will the clause on due diligence cover such eventualities?

Mr. Clark: The Select Committee considered in detail the case of someone who owns a permanent antiques fair or market that includes different traders. Obviously, the individual traders will be responsible for recording information and so on, and the provisions allow for those circumstances. Having said that, as I told the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), there will come a time when the number of times that provision is used becomes an issue further down the line. That scenario was discussed at length by the Committee, and it was satisfied that it will ultimately be covered.

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend puts forward a good argument, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
 Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not wish to take too much of the House's time, bearing in mind Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling. The Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill are

identical and, therefore, the provisions cover the whole county of Kent. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading. I congratulate the Select Committee on its work and its members on their determination—they considered the Bill very carefully for 11 days.
The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the second-hand trade, with the aim of reducing the amount of acquisitive crime, such as burglary, by making it harder to dispose of stolen goods and turn them into cash. Home Office research, supported by police intelligence, shows that a large proportion of stolen property passes through unregulated second- hand dealers.
Hon. Members w ill know that the provisions will deal with second-hand Dealers, occasional sales and squat trading. The provisions will enable the paper trail—the evidence and information required—to be set up to support genuine traders, the vast majority of whom have been involved, through various associations, in consultations with the promoters. That is why several amendments have been drafted by the promoters and considered by the Select Committee. Those amendments reflect the genuine concerns of the trade and the way in which second-hand antique dealers operate. We did not want unduly to increase the burden on businesses.
I honestly believe that the Bills will not increase that burden because many of the records that we want are included in codes of practice that operate in the trade, or have to be kept for VAT purposes. The Bills will reinforce the hard work that has been undertaken by Kent police and the trading standards agencies to reduce the amount of theft and crime.
The Bills are good examples of inter-agency working, and adopt many of the principles that were laid down in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Without taking any more time, I wish to commend the Bills to the House because they will help us to defeat those criminals who wish to cause misery for many residents of Kent.

Mr. Wyatt: It is fair to say that these Bills have faced greater and more intense scrutiny, debate and amendment than any private legislation that has come before the House in recent years. The reason for that is simple: the Bills are ill-conceived and wrong in principle. The list of amendments tabled by the promoters alone is testament to the fact that the Bills were originally drafted without proper consultation with those affected. The result is that legislation is being created on the hoof, which is not ideal.

Mr. Paul Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wyatt: I shall give way in due course; I am sure that my hon. Friend will try to intervene again.
The Bills have faced opposition inside and outside the House for many reasons. Although they are aimed at dealers in second-hand goods in Kent and Medway, the United Kingdom antiques trade as a whole has been in the vanguard of opposition. We should be grateful to a small band of organisations and hard-pressed self-employed antiques dealers, especially one from Newington in my constituency and another from Tenham, just outside it.
The Bills have been subject to close examination by an Opposed Private Bill Committee. That is not to say that such actions are not supported and endorsed nationally.
A petition has been presented to the House today that carries the signatures of more than 2,300 antique dealers and members of the public who
believe that the Kent County Council Bill should be withdrawn and any future legislation aimed at regulating the sale of second-hand goods be created on a national scale and preceded by full and proper consultation of those likely to be affected.
I think that it speaks for itself that the Committee was sufficiently moved by what it heard to publish a special report in which it said:
We think it appropriate to report the substance of our concerns—which go wider than the bills we were tasked with scrutinising—to the House.
Indeed, such was the level of concern that one member of the Committee—I see my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in his place—felt moved consistently to block the Bill's return to the House.
The Committee's report succinctly sums up the tenor of opposition to the Bills, and its key, findings echo my concerns and those of my constituents and the second-hand goods trade as a whole, but especially the antiques trade. It will be appropriate if I quote the Committee's report further:
Erskine May tells us that private legislation is 'legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, companies, or corporations—in excess of or in conflict with the general law. As such it is to be distinguished from the public general legislation, which is applicable to the general community.
The local and particular nature of private Bills is reflected not only in the way in which they are dealt with on the Floor of the House, but in the powers of, and constraints upon, Committees charged with their close scrutiny.
Committees on opposed private Bills must weigh up the arguments presented by interested parties and determine whether the balance of interest lies with the promoters or the petitioners, as they are directly and specifically affected by the provisions of the Bills The Committees may not consider the cases of those who have not petitioned and, having no power to summon witnesses other than those presented by the parties, they have only a limited ability to compare the proposals with others previously made.
None the less, our attention was drawn by all parties to the precedent Acts. Although the provisions in the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill were precedented, they differed in a number of respects from the earlier Acts, which were not themselves entirely uniform. For example, only one Act provided for the recording by registered dealers of sales as well as purchases.
We have heard from the petitioners that, although the provisions of these Bills are local, they will affect dealers who trade on a national basis. Consequently, there is a concern that, if provisions akin to those in the Bills were introduced in further such Bills, dealers would find themselves grappling with a number of subtly different regulatory regimes as they travelled around the country. We were told that the likelihood of dealers unwittingly committing offences against local legislation was strong. To me, that was a powerful argument in favour of introducing a single national regulatory structure. I do not think I disagree that such provisions will have a crime reduction impact, but I wish them to be fair and equitable across the country.
The promoters told us that national legislation to regulate the second-hand market was desirable but that they understood that there was little prospect of its being introduced in the near future. They therefore argued that the Bills were necessary to deal locally with the markets in stolen goods. It was put to Kent's deputy chief constable, Robert Ayling, that the introduction of such provisions on a local basis would have a displacement effect on criminal activity. He accepted that that might be the result. Sergeant Dan Murphy and Mr. Mark Dalrymple went further in suggesting that, as a consequence of the Bills' being enacted, the adjoining counties might in turn resort to local legislation as a means of tackling illegal trade.
Speculation as to the future activities of other authorities cannot form part of our deliberations today. None the less, we consider that, should an increasing number of local authorities seek equivalent powers, it would be profoundly undesirable in terms of enforcement and the burden on what I consider to be a very honest trade.

Mr. Paul Clark: I recognise the report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. He will recognise that the Select Committee allowed the Bills to go forward. Although I accept that national legislation may well be preferable, does he agree that it is not on the horizon? Eight other measures, including the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000, contain similar provisions, so does he not agree that the people of Kent deserve that protection as well?

Mr. Wyatt: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a question of philosophy. I am not sure that we actually fundamentally disagree but, in philosophical terms, I think that the legislation should be introduced nationally and not locally. The antiques trade operates in a national and international marketplace and these Bills penalise it in an unreasonable manner.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee is not the only body in the House to identify a strong need for public legislation. I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and our report, "Cultural Property Return and Illicit Trade" stated:
We recommend that the Home Office make a public commitment in the course of this year to establishing a national database of stolen cultural property and cultural property exported against the laws of countries concerned under national police control.
The issue has been debated elsewhere. A national database is a good idea because it would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and disorder. I gather that inquiries have been made to the Home Office and that some legislation may be forthcoming; perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later.
The question is whether the subject of the Bills—the regulation of the antiques trade in Kent—is appropriate for local legislation. The answer to that question is emphatically no, and the objection that this is not a suitable topic for local legislation underlies my every objection to the principle of the Bills.
In a unified country with one Parliament, which is not a federal united states, it is a powerful argument that the criminal law should be the same in every county. A local Bill creates criminal offences that are unlikely to be


known of by a substantial number of people whom it will affect. It creates anomalies that lead to uncertainty, complexity and injustice. In addition, it enables the promoters not to carry out a cost benefit analysis and even some consultation, which makes it impossible to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public and the police in reducing crime and the interests of the antiques trade. It is disappointing not to have a cost benefit analysis. I find it hard to accept that the measure will not require additional policing.
The Bill creates criminal offences with fines of up to £1,000 which are unlikely to be known by a substantial number of the people whom they will affect. Dealers in the antiques trade who carry on business in Kent are from all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad. Inevitably, some people will carry on businesses in Kent without knowing the local law, will commit criminal offences and will be liable to prosecution.
It is not a sound and satisfactory basis for legislation to create criminal offences that might not be known to a substantial number of people whom they affect. The Bill is not making local byelaws that are published locally for everyone to see, such as the regulation of the use of a park or a library, with a fine of £25 or £50 attached for anyone who disobeys. It is doing nothing of that nature. Instead, it creates serious criminal offences with fines of up to £1,000 that will not be known generally throughout the trade. The Bill traps honest and decent citizens who are unaware that they have committed an offence that is susceptible to criminal prosecution, with all the humiliation that that can imply.
The Bill's principles are not underpinned by a moral consideration, unlike the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which applies nationally. Everyone is deemed to know national legislation. Anyone who does not and is in business should know that, under the terms of that Act, they must not mislead their customers by the way in which they represent their goods for sale. There is a strong underlying moral theme to the 1968 Act, which is not the case with these Bills. Obligation to register is not underpinned by a moral consideration. The dealer who comes from outside Kent is genuinely an unwary individual, without a reason to suspect or know that the Bill exists.
The Bills' principles are not even part of the culture of the antiques trade. That would change, however, if there were national legislation, which is where I stand on the matter. The Bill, will not become part of the culture of the trade because they will affect only those who come to Kent from time to time.

Mr. Fallon: If there were national legislation on those grounds, would the hon. Gentleman support it?

Mr. Wyatt: I would definitely support it. I am arguing philosophically that it is wrong for just some citizens of the United Kingdom to be covered by legislation.
The promoters are easily content with the notion that Parliament should enact a Bill to create absolute offences that have an impact on innocent and responsible people who will have no defence if prosecution is brought. That is wholly unprincipled and exceptional in our legal system, although I am mindful of similar Bills in other counties.
The civil liberty issues cannot be ignored. They arise because we are dealing with local legislation that purports to regulate a trade that operates nationwide. The issue would not arise so acutely if the exponents of the trade operated wholly within the county of Kent, because such dealers could be targeted and informed about the law with comparative ease. That is not the case with the antiques trade because of the national and international marketplace.

Mr. Paul Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that similar Acts exist in other parts of the country? He seems to be making the case that the Bill will be detrimental to people who come to Kent. Does he accept that of all the registrations under the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, sources outside Kent confirm that about 51 per cent. are of traders who run their business outside the county and go into it to operate? There is a 50:50 split between those inside and those outside the county.

Mr. Wyatt: That Act was passed 10 years ago, but crime figures have only just started to fall. Other counties have introduced their own Bills, so the antiques business is regulated differently in seven or eight counties. That does not assist our attempts to deregulate, to help young entrepreneurs to prosper and to enable those who want to trade to do so. We are obfuscating the issue by increasing bureaucracy.
A witness to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, Mr. Tripp, stated that principle succinctly, when he said:
I would like to see the Bill scrapped because I really do believe that crime is a national problem and it should be dealt with in a national Bill. If I was sitting here today proposing that we have one Bill for Kent for drugs and another one for Sussex, so you could smoke cocaine on one side of the road and not on the other, you would all laugh me out of court and I cannot see that this is any different.
He is absolutely right. The criminal law should be the same throughout the country.

Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend accept that every police force has the right to operate differently and that styles of policing vary? Measures should be available, therefore, that may be particularly appropriate for one force, but not for all the others.

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We are trying to encourage best practice in police forces to be used nationally. The fundamental point is that we do not yet have best practice in the culture of policing, but we hope that we will achieve it. My question, which I dwelt on before, is whether we are equal citizens under the law or only under some laws.
I mentioned the Worcester City Council Act 1985. There is also the County of Lancashire Act 1984 and the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000. I will not read out the whole list of such Acts, but if other local authorities with similar legislation decide to enforce it, dealers will be required to cope with numerous Acts, all of them different. If other local authorities follow suit, as Newcastle upon Tyne has, the position will get worse. The position of antiques dealers in this country will become completely untenable. Do we want that business here or not? It is a massive revenue earner within UK plc and outside the country. The promoters hope and expect that other local authorities will follow suit. That is the wrong way round. Philosophically, if the proposal is right, the Home Office should introduce it nationally.
As many hon. Members know, a local Bill enables the promoter to avoid carrying out a cost benefit analysis and, in some cases, to avoid consulting the trade. The absence of a cost benefit analysis makes it impossible to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public and the police in reducing crime on the one hand, and the interests of the antiques trade in carrying out its business without undue interference on the other.
If national legislation were introduced, a proper scientific study would be carried out with the assistance of trade associations and others to ascertain the effects of regulating the antiques trade in various ways and the benefit in terms of reducing the market in stolen goods. There would be full consultation, initiated by a Green Paper and followed by a Government proposal set out in a White Paper. We all know how that system works. Such a study would inevitably involve the investigation of different types of dealers, their income and expenditure, different methods of business and the nature and extent of the problem—the market in stolen goods. It would investigate traffic in stolen goods at each level of the trade and different ways to prevent it. There would be consultation not only of Kent police but of other police forces.

Mr. Paul Clark: This is not national legislation and there is no requirement for a cost benefit analysis, but does my hon. Friend accept that consultation on the ideas behind the Bill has been extensive and began even before the first draft was started two and a half years ago? Does he accept also that the proposals have seen part and parcel of Operation Radium in Kent and Medway, so it is not as though the legislation has suddenly been introduced to the House without any discussion taking place? Do not the amendments show that the promoters have listened to members of the trade?

Mr. Wyatt: I agree in part, but I have attended public meetings and received letters and e-mails from hundreds of people saying that they were not consulted or asked for their opinion. That is a genuine grievance held especially by those in the antiques trade.
A suggestion has been made in some quarters that the opposition to the Bill of the London and Provincial Antique Dealers Association and DMG Antiques Fairs Ltd. implies that they are willing to tolerate trafficking in stolen goods. That is not true. They want properly thought out national legislation that serves the interests of the public as well as the trade—LAPADA has campaigned for that. They strongly oppose the Bill's clumsy sledgehammer approach, which will require dealers to record thousands of transactions involving articles ranging from 18th-century dining tables to tie pins, most of which will be of no value to the police.
Anyone who has visited Detling, which is one of the great antiques fairs, will realise that the Bill carries serious implications for the way in which such fairs operate. Its framing will ensure that Kent dealers have to register transactions whereas non-Kent people will not. That is a disappointment to me and those who share my views.
Many of the records will have nothing to do with reducing trafficking or tracing stolen goods in Kent. In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. Scott, representing Kent county council's trading standards department, conceded as much. His department does not even intend

to range outside Kent to inspect the records of registered dealers outside the county. Such records will be inspected only if the dealer brings them to Kent and a trading standards officer happens to run into him. Why impose a requirement to keep such records if it is not going to be enforced? That is yet another anomaly arising from this local Bill. From their evidence to the Committee, it was apparent that the Bill's promoters hoped that if the local Bill was a success, the Government would intervene with national legislation; however, the Bill's enactment will not encourage the Executive to intervene.
I ask the Minister to think again. One might as well give a drink to an alcoholic. The only way to encourage an alcoholic to seek a cure is to withhold drink. If the Government see local authorities enacting local legislation around the country, they will be satisfied that there is no need for them to intervene, but the harm done to the antiques trade in the intervening period will be dramatic.
In their evidence to the Committee, the promoters accepted that if the police case for the Bill could not be proved, there would be no basis for enacting the Bill to serve the interests of the trading standards department. Mr. Scott's evidence made it clear that any benefit to the trading standards department would be purely incidental and that the Bill must stand or fall according to whether the police have made out their case. However, last year, the value of stolen antiquities in the county of Kent constituted only 2.4 per cent. of the total value of stolen goods in Kent. That statistic was thoroughly tested in Committee.
Furthermore, in their evidence, Kent police accepted that the more organised burglar—as opposed to the burglar who is driven by addictive drugs—will transport antiques a great distance to dispose of them. If antiques are taken outside the county before disposal, they will not be affected by the Bill and will fall outside its recording provisions. Antiques that are taken outside the county will have been stolen by the more organised and trained burglar and are likely to be more valuable.
As I have said, the out-and-out rogue dealer is unlikely to register under the Bill, and the Bill will not impinge on goods disposed by those who remain unregistered. If a dealer remains unregistered, the powers of recording conferred by the Bill will be inapplicable to him; equally, the powers of entry and inspection afforded to the police by the Bill will not apply to him. The local unorganised burglar who has stolen an antique will not generally have gone out of his way to steal antiques. He will steal the more usual items, such as video recorders and the latest PlayStation. The Bill deals with an extremely small proportion of the stolen goods in Kent.
The gain to the police to be derived from the Bill in relation to the antiques trade is wholly unproven. The measure of assistance that they can reasonably hope to gain from it, whether in reducing the market in stolen antiques or in tracing such goods, will be very small indeed. In contrast, the Bill will cause dealers in the antiques trade to prepare thousands of different sets of records. Some of those records will cover thousands of transactions. As I explained, a house clearance can involve between 3,000 and 4,000 items. Trying to use such records to trace stolen goods will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
In the Committee, Kent police were asked how they would know where to start looking if somebody reported a Lowestoft jug stolen. With a list of thousands of names,


where would they start to look? The police response was, "Well, our intelligence-led policing will target certain dealers." From that answer, it follows that the ordinary honest dealer, who has no wish to accept stolen goods, is not going to be targeted by the police unless, by pure chance, the police are tipped off and told that the Lowestoft jug has regrettably ended up with an honest dealer. The out-and-out rogue dealer, on the other hand, will get by without registering. The dishonest antiques dealer will register, but he is unlikely to oblige by recording correct names, addresses and descriptions of articles. Inventive means can be used by the rogue dealer to avoid the provisions of the Bill.
Some individuals may be caught, but they will be liable to fines of only £1,000. The inference is that the burden of the Bill will be borne by the honest dealer—not by the crook or the dodgy dealer—for little gain.
We know from the North Yorkshire experience that for the first three or four years the Act that applied to that area was never enforced. It was then enforced for a period, and resources were diverted and re-prioritised elsewhere. The same will happen in Kent. The police change their tactics to meet the changing tactics of the criminal and resources are reapplied elsewhere. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the crime rate has gone down. What happens? We lose five police officers.

Kali Mountford: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that tactics used by the police and burglars change. Burglars who are now taking certain items may be finding it difficult to dispose of them. If antiques were exempted, would burglars not find themselves a new market?

Mr. Wyatt: There is some logic in what my hon. Friend says.
Kent-registered dealers at antiques fairs will lose business, whether in Kent or elsewhere, in the important period at the beginning of the fair when dealers are operating at close quarters and in hectic competition. In such circumstances, a dealer will not stop to provide his name and address or other forms of identification to the Kent-registered dealer, who will therefore lose out on the best available deals. Although in theory the purchaser can take the badge number of the seller, by no means all fairs issue badges.
I shall give the example of an Act that relates to the registration of adults who work with children. The sum involved was £10. The Scottish Parliament said that it would pay that sum. I tabled a question asking whether it would be all right for scouts, football teams and guides in my constituency to register as a PO Box in Edinburgh. As the House will know, there is now no charge in England. Antique dealers and others will find ways of getting round the Bill's provisions. That is why the issue is national and not local.
It is clear from the evidence that business will be lost by dealers at antique fairs, and not merely in the first few hours of trade. Similarly, it will be lost outside antique fairs in the normal course of business, because people will refuse to give their names and addresses. It is equally clear that alternative methods of identification will not be the answer. Not everyone has a driving licence, and not everyone who has a licence carries it. Not many people

will produce a credit card to identify themselves. They may pay by credit card, but that is their chosen method of payment, assuming that the dealer will accept one. The dealer will not necessarily have credit card facilities. Most people cannot remember their national insurance number, and who walks around with a passport?
Dealers who buy from abroad or from tourists will, in many instances, be unable to get the names and addresses of the vendors, as a result of which business will be lost. A witness to the Committee, whose plight is by no means unusual, described graphically the difficulties experienced in buying at brocantes and fairs in France, and in buying from Japanese tourists. It is difficult to see how a Kent dealer could continue in business if the Bill were enacted, including the provisions relating to antiques.
The requirement of the Bill to record a description sufficient to identify the article was amended in Committee. If an antiques dealer is asked to describe an antique, he will naturally resort to the method that has been used since time immemorial. We will not change the animal by requiring the dealer to describe the article in another way. It is common to find that one dealer backs his hunch or judgment against another when it comes to the date of an article, who made it and so forth. Such differing views, it is suggested, would be converted into criminal offences.
That is the cause of anxiety to the dealer. Of course, a mis-description could blot out the tracing facility of the records. That could give rise to annoyance on the part of the police or the trading standards officer, for example. No one can predict the extent to which a dealer will be criticised if he makes a mistake in his description of an article.
Some antiques dealers buy goods in lots, whether it be at a house clearance or otherwise; they then sell on in lots. The lots can include 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or more articles. Sometimes they do not even look at them. They do not want them. They are not interested in the overwhelming majority of the contents of a house, but they notice the odd clock or the odd piece of furniture. That is what attracts them. The dealer will now have to log everything. He will have to make up his mind whether it is worth logging each article and whether an article can go to sale for less than £10. He will have to consider whether he is under an obligation to enter a description of each and every article. That is becoming ridiculous for those in the trade.
Is it right to impose the burden of more book-keeping on the trade, as those people are busy? We have reached the stage in our history where we do not think it justifiable to impose regulations on individuals without real justification. The Bill indiscriminately imposes regulation, regardless of the level of turnover or the number of transactions, which is a grievous imposition. It is not valid to argue that people are required to enter such records under the VAT margin scheme, as the global accounting scheme has been specially provided by Customs and Excise to meet the particular requirements of businesses with a high turnover of low-value articles. They do not have to enter such records in relation to transactions of £500 or less
If the Bill becomes law, the prospects are bad for antiques fairs in Kent, which will be driven out of the county altogether. The Bill will have a considerable effect on many businesses that attend those fairs. We do not


know to what extent dealers will say, "I am not going to bother with Kent any more; I am going to go elsewhere." No study has been carried out to determine that. A drop of only 20 per cent. in the number of stall holders at Detling, the largest fair in Kent, will turn it into a loss-making enterprise. If it closes, the effect on the local economy will be devastating.
The question of how to exclude the antiques trade from the Bill is a natural progression from my earlier statements. It merely becomes a question of definition; the VAT regulations are an excellent starting point because a great deal of thought has been given to the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, S.I. 1268, as amended by the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1999, S.I. 3120. I venture to suggest that those regulations contain concise, simple definitions that have been well thought through by those advising Customs and Excise. While not a perfect fit, they require little modification and provide the comfort of being based on a substantial amount of research and consultation. I shall therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr. Michael Howard: I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) was right that, despite our somewhat attenuated proceedings this afternoon, it has received a good deal of parliamentary scrutiny. On Second Reading, we had a good debate on its principles, and the Committee that considered it extremely conscientiously paid close attention to each of its provisions.
I have consistently supported the Bill but not, it is fair to say, without many misgivings. It is true that the Bill imposes significant additional regulation on the traders whose activities it covers. My hon. Friends and I are philosophically predisposed to object to further regulation; there is too much regulation, which ought to be diminished. That is a powerful argument against the Bill, as is the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about consistency. I agree that national legislation would have been preferable, but we know that that it is not on the cards and is unlikely to be introduced in the near future.
Those of us who represent the people of Kent therefore have to face up to the question. We all want to do everything that we can to reduce crime in Kent. The question boils down to this: are we prepared to will the means as well as the end? I believe that the Bill will contribute to the reduction of crime in Kent. At least equally importantly. the chief constable, to whom I paid tribute on Second Reading and in whose judgment I have considerable confidence, is strongly of that view as well.
Despite the cogent points made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and the misgivings to which I referred, I believe that the Bill—which, I deeply regret, will impose difficulties on many traders, including many of my constituents—will make a significant contribution to making Kent a place with less property crime. That is an objective of considerable importance, which is why I have consistently supported the legislation.

Mr. Rowe: I shall be brief. Many of my constituents have, like those of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), taken a leading role in opposing the legislation and have written and spoken to me about it. I share a number of their anxieties. Their principal concern is that the Bill should be national legislation. The Government came to power on a pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but it is a shame that when they are confronted with an opportunity to introduce relatively modest legislation nationwide, they allow it to grow up piecemeal through a series of private Bills.
It is a poor argument to suggest that there is no room to deal with a measure that controls crime, which impinges on every person in the country, in a legislative timetable that has given so much time to irrelevancies such as hunting with dogs. I would have supported the Bill with fervour if it had been national legislation, but I do not feel fervent about it. Instead, I feel anxious for constituents of mine who work in the trade, as there may be a small transfer of trade—I think it will be smaller than they fear—to other places, where people do not have to keep records.
In an increasingly international world, trade goes to the places where it is best regulated and organised. Most antique dealers in Kent have a justifiably high reputation for honesty and probity. I hope that the Bill will increase that impression, as a good reputation brings trade in its wake. It is for the police to prove that the Bill diminishes crime, however, and I look forward to considering their records during the next two or three years to find out whether it does so.
The other reason why I am keen to support the Bill is that I am outraged to know that there are shops in my constituency that send out thieves to steal to order. They are well known to the police and to some local people, but it is so difficult to catch them in the act that they continue to commit their crimes with apparent impunity. The sending out of youngsters to steal to order was a well-known feature of 19th-century London, but I am outraged by the idea that dealers in my constituency are doing the same thing now. Such crime is a significant way of increasing the drugs trade, as it is drug addicts who are most likely to do the stealing. Any measure that will diminish such activities is to be commended, which is why I support the Bill.

Mr. Fallon: I, too, support the Bill, for the reasons that I outlined on Second Reading, which now seems a very long time ago. I do not do so with wild enthusiasm, however, as there are issues of bureaucracy and the central question of local or national legislation. As I made clear on Second Reading, a price may have to be paid for the Bill in terms of bureaucracy, as it could bear down heavily on people who are not involved in criminal activity of any sort, but who will now have to put up with some of the red tape to which the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) referred. Those issues have been explored both in Committee and in the House today, and the promoters' original proposals have been substantially amended during the Bill's passage through both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the bureaucratic burden will be less than it might otherwise have been.
The only other argument about the Bill is whether it should have been a national measure. I made my position clear on Second Reading. I am not opposed to local innovation in developing the law. It is now for other counties and for police forces to see how Kent gets on and to decide whether to promote their own legislation.
The Bill is slightly different and it builds on experience from elsewhere. That is useful. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey may be right to say that a Bill that applies nationally is preferable. In response to my intervention he said that, despite his misgivings about the lack of a moral framework, he would support it if it applied nationally.
The Bill does not apply nationally, and there is no prospect of such a measure. I do not know what the position will be on 4 May, but there is little prospect of a national Bill in the next few days or weeks. We must therefore deal with the measure as it stands.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was right when he said that Kent police's case was unproven. That is the nature of such measures; the police cannot prove to Parliament that the Bill will work and make a substantial difference. It is for us to make a judgment. We must assess the likely impact, the bureaucratic cost and the red tape. We must set our judgment against that of those who are in the front line.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed such a judgment today. He has been in the front line as one of the more successful Home Secretaries of recent times. Crime decreased during his term of office. We have also heard the judgment of the chief constable of Kent. The Government acknowledge that he is one of the more successful chief constables in the fight against crime. I am prepared to accept at least those two judgments.
The police believe that the Bill strengthens the instruments at their disposal, and that it will make a difference. Such measures have made a difference in other areas and to other trades—for example, scrap metal. A measure on that was introduced much earlier. It is important to remember that the Bill will apply to trades other than antiques. That is why the police support it.
None the less, we should not forget antiques, which are being stolen. If they could not be cashed in so easily, they would not be stolen. The ease with which antiques can be translated into cash lies behind the extraordinarily high rates of burglary.
If there is a Division, I shall support the Bill, albeit without huge enthusiasm. Its effect may be modest, but at least it will be modest on the right side. I suspect that Kent police will be proved right and the Bill will have a significant, but not huge, impact on the operation of criminals in Kent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I do not wish to say much; I simply want to deal briefly with the issue of local and national legislation. It is the convention that the Government are neutral on private Bills, and we intend to maintain that. However, Project Radium is already examining ways to reduce supply and demand of stolen

goods in Kent. The Home Office is closely associated with the project; indeed, we are providing £462,000 for it and are paying for its evaluation. We are therefore keen to ensure that it is considered with great care. Without wishing to anticipate the results of the evaluation, I understand and sympathise with the view of the promoters of such Bills that voluntary action is not enough.
If the Bill is passed today, the Government must consider whether some of the rules for which it provides need to be introduced nationally. If Parliament decides to enact the Bill, we intend to discuss with Kent county police the best way in which its benefits can be evaluated in a reasonable time If the Government can demonstrate through experience that the benefits of the measure outweigh the cost that it will impose on second-hand dealers, we will consider carefully whether the Bill and those like it that have already been passed should form the basis for national legislation.
I hope that those points will assist the House without compromising the Government's neutrality on the Bill.

Mr. Paul Clark: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate on Third Reading.
I welcome the comments by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), about looking carefully at the provisions of the Bill if it is passed tonight. He is absolutely right about Project Radium, which, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), has consistently contributed to the reduction in burglaries and associated crimes in the Medway area. It has been operating on a voluntary basis, but it has rightly been pointed out that that is not enough, which is why we are debating the Bill today.
The records that are being sought are not substantially more than those that would be required under the good practice guidance notes of various associations, the requirements for VAT, and so on. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) recognised, we have caught the mood in terms of the requirements and the cash-up limits required for record-keeping. That provision was introduced purely to ensure that we eased the burdens on traders as much as possible, and to ensure that we continue to have a healthy operation in Kent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to removing antique dealers from the scope of the Bill. It is impossible to do that, and I hope that we covered that when we considered the amendments. Antique dealers trade not only in antiques but in many items, some of which—jewellery and watches, for example—have been identified by Kent police as items that ire frequently stolen and traded.
Let me add, for the benefit of hon. Members who have expressed concern, that new clause 20, which was added in Committee, provides a requirement for the promoters and the police to report to the Secretary of State on the benefits or otherwise of the Bill, no more than three years after the appointed day.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the burden of the regulatory effect of the Bill, and to the need to strike a balance between the interests of local businesses involved


in this trade and helping and protecting residents. This is a question of balance, and we have taken steps to try to ease that burden.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to the process of funding the purchase of drugs, and suggested that drugs might lead to much of this type of crime. He is absolutely right. It is believed that when burglaries are committed to fund drug-related habits, the problem is not exported over the boundary into neighbouring counties, because people want to sell the stolen goods quickly in order to get the cash, and they are not going to travel to another county to do that.
We have had a substantial debate on Third Reading that has aired a number of concerns that are shared by all Members of the House. We shall watch closely the effects of the Bill, which I am pleased to support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Medway Council Bill [Lords] [By Order]

As amended, considered.

Clause 2

APPOINTED DAY

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, line 9, leave out,
'a newspaper circulating in the borough'

and insert—
'at least two newspapers circulating in the borough and at least one national art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 19, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
No. 17, in page 2, line 18, after 'newspaper', insert
'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: In view of the fact that our proceedings on this Bill will be a copy of what we have just done with the Kent County Council Bill, can we do it all formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, but we shall proceed gently.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 1 line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

No 17, in page 2, line 18, after 'newspaper', insert
'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 4

INTERPRETATION OF PART 2

Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 1, in page 4, leave out line 5.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 5

REGISTRATION OF DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 4, line 25, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

No. 27, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
'(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 6

INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY REGISTERED DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS

Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 32, leave out '(4)' and insert '(8)'.

Promoters amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 35, leave out 'his business' and insert—
'the business in respect of which he is registered'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 4, line 35, leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 36.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'than' to end of line 29 and insert—'the relevant amount'.

Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—
(a)£10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
(b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;
or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'

Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 34, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
Promoters amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 1, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 14, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 15, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)' .—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 7

OFFENCES UNDER PART 2

Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 33, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10).'

Promoters amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.

Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 9, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 8

EXEMPTIONS UNDER PART 2

Promoters amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 31, at end insert—
'(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
(f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.

—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Clause 12

INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY HOLDER OF CERTAIN OCCASIONAL SALES

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 44, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.

No. 47, in page 10, line 44, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
'the business address or business telephone number'.

No. 48, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'business address' and insert—
'his business address or business telephone number'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Clause 17

DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE

Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 13, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Question put: That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We opposed the same idea when we were dealing with the Kent County council Bill. May I withdraw the amendment, so that there need not be a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may get to that stage, but we shall have to ask for Tellers first.

KALI MOUNTFORD and MR. MICHAEL HOWARD were appointed Tellers for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PETITIONS

Public Houses (Portsmouth)

Mr. Mike Hancock: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Carol and Mick Frewing, the tenants of the Connaught Arms in Fratton, Portsmouth, and of more than 1,000 local people who want a fair deal for local pubs and landlords. The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Carol and Mick Frewing, tenants of the Connaught Arms, Fratton, Portsmouth.
That Whitbread Plc has decided to sell all its 3,000 pubs to a sole bidder, thereby denying its 1,700 pub licensees the right to buy the Freehold of their premises. The Petitioners believe that this action may seriously jeopardise one's choice and the future of small pubs everywhere, especially in Portsmouth.
The Petitioners pray that your honourable House support the signatories of Early-Day Motion 177 in deploring this decision by Whitbread Plc. The Petitioners further pray that the House note that Many Licensees have invested considerable sums in their pubs and have in the process contributed substantially to Whitbread's profit; recognise also that these licensees now feel betrayed by the company's actions and ask the Honourable House to support their right to buy campaign.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray

To lie upon the Table

Orders of the Day — Miners' Compensation

[The following petition was presented on behalf of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig).]

The Petition of the residents of South Wales,
Declares that the existing evidence of respiratory disease contracted by miners is sufficient to meet the requirement for immediate payment of personal injury compensation without further testing or administrative delay; and that more than 25,000 readers

of the South Wales Argus have called on the Government to make immediate substantial payments to all chronically ill ex-miners and to the widows of men who have died as a result of such illnesses.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to speed up payments to claimants and bring justice to ex-miners and miners' widows.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Illegal Immigrants (Eurotunnel)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Michael Howard: The United Kingdom terminal of the Eurotunnel service through the Channel tunnel lies in my constituency. For some time now, I have been disturbed by numerous reports of the frequency with which illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom are being apprehended in my constituency, both within the United Kingdom terminal and elsewhere. I have also been concerned about the increasing frequency of the reports which I read about the ways in which illegal entrants have gained access to Eurotunnel at the French terminal at Coquelles.
Last week, I decided to go through the tunnel to France, to see for myself what things were like on the French side. I travelled through the tunnel in the company of Bill Dix, the managing director of Eurotunnel, and I am very grateful to him and his colleagues for their co-operation.
I looked at the security arrangements at the terminal in Coquelles, and I visited the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. I applied for this debate so that I could report on what I found to the House and, indeed, to the Minister, for, as far as I am aware—no doubt she will correct me if I am wrong—neither she nor any of her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office have yet made a similar trip.
I hope that no one is in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation. I was told, for example, that the number of illegal immigrants apprehended within the United Kingdom terminal was running at a rate that would mean that as many would be apprehended in this month of March as were apprehended in the whole of last year. The number apprehended in the French terminal in the first 12 days of March was no fewer than 1,082. I am sorry that, through a misunderstanding, I gave that figure for the United Kingdom terminal on the radio this morning, but the true number affords no grounds for complacency, and is a matter of grave concern.
At the Red Cross centre in Sangatte, about which I shall say more in a moment, the number of people passing through during the past 18 months was no fewer than 25,000. I do not know whether the Minister was previously aware of that astonishing figure. It certainly brings home the scale of the problem that I want to discuss this evening.
The Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles is a big place. I was told that it covers roughly the same area as Heathrow airport. It is obviously a very difficult area to make secure. I think that Eurotunnel has made a genuine attempt to do what it can to make it difficult for unauthorised entry to its trains, or the lorries that use its trains, to be obtained. It has not, however, been wholly successful in this endeavour—far from it.
When I talked to Eurotunnel about its problems, it identified two ways in which matters could be improved. First, the fencing of a part of the area is the responsibility of SNCF, the French national railways. SNCF has, I was told, been promising since last June to put up in respect of the area for which it is responsible the same kind of high security fencing that Eurotunnel is in the process of erecting—and, indeed, has now largely erected—in


respect of the area for which it is responsible. Despite these assurances, no such action has yet been taken by SNCF.
SNCF is a nationalised concern. If there were any political will on the part of the French Government to take action on these matters, they could ensure that SNCF took the necessary action. If relations between the United Kingdom Government and the French Government are anything like as good as we are constantly told they are, it should be an easy matter for the United Kingdom Government to make representations to the French Government to ensure that this is done. I hope that the Minister will tell us during her reply to what representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the French Government on this issue and what response they have received.
I should mention that if this action were taken, it would have a positive effect not only on those who abuse Eurotunnel's services but on those who use the rail freight services through the tunnel. I am aware of the many difficulties faced by the operators of that service, largely caused by SNCF, although they lie somewhat outside the scope of the issue on which I want to concentrate this evening.
The second step that could be taken to improve security at the Coquelles terminal relates to the personnel who are employed on security duties at the terminal. As a result of the combined effect of the agreement under which the terminal is policed and French law, Eurotunnel's own security personnel have, as I was told last week, very limited powers. They are unable to use force in respect of those who seek unauthorised entry to the terminal and they are unable to detain any who are apprehended there. However, British police officers, including the Ministry of Defence police, would, as I understand it, have such powers. Eurotunnel therefore believes that personnel with those powers should be made available to undertake security duties at the terminal. The most obvious candidates seem to Eurotunnel and to me to be Ministry of Defence police. I understand that that option is currently being considered by the United Kingdom Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress, if any, has been made in considering that option.
The Red Cross centre at Sangatte is a remarkable place. It is evidently well run, and I entirely accept that the provision of the facilities that are available and the work that is carried out are motivated by the highest principles. However, the inescapable—and astonishing—fact is that this large facility exists solely for the purpose of providing food and shelter for those who are seeking illegal entry into the United Kingdom. Those who use the facilities are there only because of the proximity to the terminal at Coquelles. If they were able to obtain legal entry into the United Kingdom, there would be no need for them to stop off at Sangatte in the first place.
I can quite see why no one in France has any incentive to do anything to change the present situation. They are only too happy for these people to leave France, gain entry to the United Kingdom and apply for asylum in this country. They make little secret of that fact. The Minister will know, however, as everyone who pays any attention to this subject will know, that the international convention on refugees, which is the fundamental source of our

obligations on this matter, provides that asylum seekers should seek sanctury in the first safe country in which they find themselves. Self-evidently, for those arriving from continental Europe into this country by any method of transport other than air, that first safe country is never the United Kingdom.
The obvious question that arises is why those who congregate at Sangatte and elsewhere are so determined to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, rather than in France or any of the other countries through which they have travelled on their way to the United Kingdom. I asked that question of those whom I met at the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. Their answers were illuminating. They listed three factors—the English language, more money and better accommodation.
I understand that there is nothing that the Minister can do about the English language, but there is a very great deal that the Government can do to deal with the other factors that attract asylum seekers to this country.
I repeat that this country is never the first safe country arrived at by asylum seekers who use the channel tunnel. They therefore have a wide choice of countries in which they can apply for asylum. By definition, all those who use the Red Cross centre at Sangatte could apply for asylum in France. No amount of statistical obfuscation on the part of the Government can obscure the extraordinary fact that last year, for the first time, more people applied for asylum in the United Kingdom than in any of the other member states of the European Union, including Germany.
The Liberal Democrats say that nothing can be done to affect the number of people who apply for asylum in this country, so they do not propose to do anything at all about the problem. The Government's position, however, is different. They accept that measures can and should be taken to deal with that aspect of the problem. That, indeed, was the purpose of the legislation that eventually found its way on to the statute book last year.
I am on record as wishing the Government well with that legislation. I expressed the hope that it would work. Clearly, if it had worked, that would have been greatly to the benefit of my constituents, but the conclusion is now utterly inescapable that the Government's legislation has not worked. So, far from moderating the number of people who apply for asylum in the United Kingdom, that number has continued to increase.
The evidence that I discovered during my journey through the channel tunnel last week is that this problem is now completely out of control. What is more, the greater the extent to which it becomes apparent that it is out of control, the greater will be the numbers coming to the Red Cross centre at Sangatte and trying to effect illegal entry into the United Kingdom.
There are two other aspects of the problem with which I want to deal before I sit down. On both sides of this House, there is unanimity that genuine refugees should be granted asylum, although it is noteworthy that the Home Secretary has recently called for another look at the international conventions that govern our obligations in that respect.
The residents of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte do not give the appearance of people fleeing from persecution. They were described to me by those who run the centre as, typically, young, single, male and middle class. It costs, on average, £7,000 for them to get to


northern France from their starting point. That is money not readily available to poor, downtrodden victims of persecution.
The truth is that the arrangements that exist in this country for asylum seekers are significantly more favourable to them than those that exist in other member states of the European Union. That is something for which the Government are responsible and which, now that the failure of their recent legislation is apparent, they should address. It is clear that action can be taken to deal with this problem. When I was Home Secretary the effect of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the associated benefit changes which we introduced was to reduce the number of asylum seekers to the United Kingdom by 40 per cent. The present Government could have continued with that policy, but chose not to. That is why the number of asylum seekers has increased from 29,000 in 1996—the last full year of the last Government—to more than 76,000 last year. That is why the situation is now out of control.
There is one final point that I should make before I sit down since it is frequently made but distorted by Government spokesmen. Indeed, the Minister attempted to make it on the "Today" programme this morning. The Dublin convention was agreed in 1990. That was long before I became Home Secretary, but more importantly, long before the asylum problem had reached the dimensions with which we are faced today. The underlying principle of the Dublin convention is that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first member state of the European Union in which they find themselves. It is a principle, to which, at least in theory, all subscribe.
The convention came into force in the summer of 1997. There is evidence to suggest that it is not working as it was intended to work and that, far from facilitating the application of that fundamental principle to which I have referred, it may in some cases be obstructing it. If that is so, the present Government have had almost four years since the convention came into force to revise it or withdraw from it. They never cease to tell us how warm their relations are with other member states of the European Union. Let this issue be a test of those assertions. If relations are indeed as good as we are always told they are, it should not be a difficult matter for the convention to be applied as it Was always intended to be applied, to ensure that asylum seekers make their application for asylum in the first member state in which they find themselves.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: Yes, of course, I give way to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.

Mr. Howarth: I would have been here at the outset, had the earlier business not broken up sooner than anticipated. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on drawing this extremely important issue to the attention of the House. Will he address himself to a problem that has arisen in respect of the Dublin convention? The United Kingdom courts are now saying that even if the Government wished to return people to some continental countries, those countries are not deemed to be safe in terms of their future handling of

those asylum seekers whom we wish to return to the continent. Is this not a serious issue? What advice can my right hon. and learned Friend give the Government to address the problem vis-à-vis our own courts?

Mr. Howard: This is a serious issue. It is an astonishing development on the part of the courts which say that only they can decide whether France or Germany is a safe country, that only they can decide what the proper interpretation of the convention is to be and that they know better than any other courts in any other European country. The answer is simple: the Government should legislate to overrule the decisions of the courts. If the Government say that they may not be able to achieve their objective in that way because of the Human Rights Act 1998, I ask who was responsible for it.
My constituency is at the sharp end of this problem. The problem is getting worse and must be dealt with. I have made what I believe are constructive proposals to the Minister this evening. The problem is out of control and action must be taken to deal with it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Perhaps I could deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It refers to an old batch of cases that have now progressed through the courts. My understanding is that the 1999 legislation dealt with that point and that those cases referred to matters that arose before that legislation came into force. If my understanding of the matter is not correct, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members present.
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing oppression. For genuine refugees, we are committed by the international convention to provide protection from persecution, and we shall continue to do so. Indeed, not only are we obliged to do so by our international convention commitments, but I believe strongly that we have a positive moral duty to do so. The right to seek asylum did not just happen in 1951; it is much more ancient and fundamental than that. It is embodied in all the great world religions and I am proud that we, too, discharge our obligations.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister agree that the 1951 convention, which is 50 years old, applied to wholly different circumstances from those that apply at present? Nowadays, someone can get on an aeroplane in Afghanistan, fly to Moscow, hijack the plane to London and, the next thing we know, become the Minister's responsibility at Stansted. What was the Home Secretary saying last year in Lisbon if it was not that the convention was out of date and that the problem of asylum seekers should be dealt with in the nearest safe country to the country where the persecution is occurring? Can the hon. Lady update us on the Home Secretary's comments last year?

Mrs. Roche: Not only did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make that speech in Lisbon last year; he spoke on the subject more recently in London. It is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of which the


hon. Gentleman is a member—considered some of these issues recently and produced a report that gives an extremely helpful background to them.
We continue to abide by the principles of the convention. Indeed, European Union Heads of Government affirmed that commitment at Tampere. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the context in which the framers of the 1951 convention operated was different from present circumstances—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made similar points. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognised that and has initiated global consultation on the convention. The UNHCR says firmly that the convention is not—and was never intended to be—a migratory instrument. I always make a clear distinction between legal migration—on which I have recently made speeches—and asylum, which I strongly believe must be ring-fenced. Such an important concept cannot be undermined.
That is the background against which the Government introduced the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to strengthen immigration control and the asylum system, making it fairer, faster and firmer. The aim of the Act was to improve the asylum process across the board and to tackle the problem of illegal immigration to the UK
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will forgive me if I do not quite share his analysis of past history on this matter. By the end of the previous Government's term of office, it was clear that asylum applications were rising—as they were across the whole of Europe. Indeed, according to current figures, some countries are experiencing greater pressure than us; compared with other EU countries, we are in the middle of the table showing numbers per head of population.
There was also a tremendous problem with support. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that areas such as Kent and London were faced with the difficult responsibilities of support as a result of his own failed legislation, which was struck down by the courts.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady will know that that happened as a result of the intervention of the courts, which said that the duty, which had fallen into disuse, on local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 was still relevant, and that it was open to the Government to legislate—it would have taken a one-clause Bill—to restore the interpretation that Parliament had always intended under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which led to the 40 per cent. decrease in the number of asylum seekers applying for entry to this country.

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts a good gloss on it, but his legislation was absolutely defective because he did not realise what would happen as a result of the 1948 Act, which was prayed in aid by several authorities, including Westminster council. He was prepared to allow in-country applicants for asylum—men, women and children—to be left destitute, with no support whatever.
Illegal immigration is an international and European problem, which we can solve only through close co-operation with other countries. For that reason, the United Kingdom co-operates within the framework of the EU, as well as bilaterally, to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
One of the major new measures introduced under the 1999 Act is the imposition of the civil penalty, which the Conservative party has resolutely opposed. The measure was brought into force last year to tackle the problem of clandestine immigration in road vehicles. As a result, those held to be responsible are now faced with fines of £2,000 for every clandestine illegal entrant carried. The legislation encourages hauliers to take responsibility for the security of their vehicles and prevents them from being used to conceal illegal immigrants. It has been successful in encouraging hauliers and ferry operators to introduce better security systems.
In response to the growing number of immigrants who attempt to enter the United Kingdom illegally every day, P amp; O Stena Line has introduced carbon dioxide checks on all freight vehicles using its ferries. Provisional figures indicate that those checks at Calais have contributed to a 37 per cent. reduction in the number of undocumented arrivals found in Kent in the 12 weeks since checks began. However, the recent increase in security at the port of Calais has had a displacement effect in the area, and that is, of course, the subject of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. We have seen an increase in clandestine immigration on the rail freight services and on the shuttle as a result. That not only undermines our immigration control but is highly dangerous to those who seek to enter and gives rise to a public safety issue.
The increased security at Calais has also led to a rise in undocumented arrivals at Cheriton involving people who have boarded open-sided freight shuttle trains. In February, there were more than 400 undocumented arrivals at Cheriton. The Government are co-operating closely with Eurotunnel and the French authorities in sharing intelligence and information to prevent clandestine entry and human trafficking.
My officials maintain close links with the company. On 8 March, I met the then president of Eurotunnel, and other executives, to identify the weaknesses of the site. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is a very large site indeed. We discussed how to improve security there, and we have looked at ways in which to achieve that aim.
I am pleased to say that, yesterday, I received a letter from Eurotunnel telling me that it had examined the suggestion that I had made at the meeting on 8 March that the inner cordon at Coquelles should be extended to include the freight reservoir area. We have identified that area as a particular target by those seeking to enter illegally.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is a slightly unusual Adjournment debate and the hon. Lady's willingness to give way is much appreciated. I received a letter today from EWS—English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—saying that, since 1 March 1999, it has been fined no less than £182,000 as a result of illegal immigrants being found when they arrive in the United Kingdom. The letter says that
EWS has installed and operates a sophisticated inspection and detection system at our Dollands Moor yard near Folkestone",
which is, no doubt, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It points out that that is
the first opportunity EWS has to inspect Channel Tunnel international freight trains arriving into Britain.


At its own expense, EWS has installed the equipment but, as soon as it finds someone, along comes the immigration and nationality directorate and slaps a £2,000 fine on the company. What incentive is there for private sector companies to invest in the detection equipment if, as a result of the success of the equipment, they get a £2,000 fine for each immigrant they discover?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises the related but different issue of the rail freight that might come from Italy, pass through the tunnel and arrive in the yard. EWS works in partnership with SNCF in bringing the trains through the tunnel, and we are working with EWS; I have had a couple of meetings with the company. I have also spoken to SNCF about the way in which CO2 devices can carry out checks in the freight yards.
We are grateful for the partnership that we have with EWS in carrying out the checks at Dollands Moor, but the difficulty is that, by the time they are done, it is in a sense too late because people have already come through the tunnel. That is why we are working with the company to see what we can do about the problem.
We are pleased with the response that we have had from Eurotunnel and it has said that, once the precise details are worked out, it can do as we have suggested to reinforce security. That is to be welcomed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the use of Ministry of Defence personnel.

Mr. Howard: Before the Minister moves on to that issue, will she deal specifically with my first point about the importance of SNCF strengthening the security fencing in that part of the Coquelles terminal for which it is responsible?

Mrs. Roche: I will deal with that point. The issue was raised at my meeting with Eurotunnel on 8 March. We shall certainly see whether we can take the matter forward and we shall work in partnership with SNCF to do that. The issue has been raised, and I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that it is a serious one.
On the question of military assistance and Ministry of Defence personnel, our clear understanding is that there is no provision in the Sangatte protocol to support the deployment of United Kingdom armed forces at Coquelles. I am afraid that that is the position.

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the Minister has been generous in giving way, but we have some time available. She said that the protocol does not cover the use of United Kingdom military personnel, but is that also the case for the use of UK police officers, including MOD police officers who have been mentioned to me by Eurotunnel and whom I have mentioned to the Minister?

Mrs. Roche: It is our understanding that the permission applies only to immigration officers.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Red Cross centre at Sangatte, which is effectively a holding centre for people who are seeking to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely to apply for asylum or work illegally. I accept that people who think that they have a well-founded fear of persecution under the convention should apply for asylum in the first safe

country that they reach. We must reject asylum shopping. However, the key consideration is that if we ring-fence asylum as the ancient, noble and honourable concept that it is—I make no bones about describing it in that way—it must not be undermined.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me for making this point again, but we disagree on it. He will recall that from April 1995, we were able to remove all illegal entrants back to France under the gentleman's agreement. Although that still works for non-asylum cases, it no longer works for asylum cases. That is a problem. The Dublin convention was a long time in its implementation, and was signed and imposed by the previous Government. It was always going to be difficult to prove where a claimant for asylum had first entered the EU. We believe that the Dublin convention is not working properly. That is widely accepted in the EU and the Commission is reviewing it.
We are determined to continue to work with our European partners to stamp out people smuggling.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has the Minister been to Sangatte?

Mrs. Roche: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: Well, my right hon. and learned Friend, my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee and I have. If the Minister has read our report, she will know that we were appalled by what we saw. This issue cuts across party lines. Not only are people being kept in less than adequate conditions, but they are being warehoused by the French authorities under the noses of French officials until they manage to make an illegal journey across the channel, where they land on us and become our problem. Those people are the responsibility of the French authorities. If the much-vaunted co-operation that the Government say they have with the French authorities exists, why do they not persuade them that it is their responsibility to deal with those 25,000 people instead of supervising their illegal crossing of the channel?

Mrs. Roche: That is partly the fault of the abject failure of the Dublin convention. We cannot make someone apply for asylum. The hon. Gentleman's point supports my case. We need to clamp down on the people smugglers and the traffickers, who are taking part in an evil trade. That is why our initiative for action in the western Balkans is making good progress and drawing support from other member states. The aim is twofold: to send operational teams of immigration and police officers to work in support of the authorities in Bosnia and Croatia and to create a wider network of immigration liaison officers to gather information and to target and encourage operational activity by host countries. The objective is to break up the networks involved in people smuggling and to prevent smuggling at source and on transit routes.
We are working with the French authorities. I am sure that during their visit to Sangatte, hon. Members were told of the number of successful prosecutions in France and England of the facilitators behind the trade. We have supplied intelligence to the French authorities. Successful prosecutions have taken place and people have, rightly, received prison sentences.
We are determined to do everything that we can to extend that bilateral co-operation. That was confirmed at the successful United Kingdom-France summit on


9 February, at which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other Ministers had full discussions with their French counterparts. The summit confirmed the introduction of juxtaposed controls at Eurostar terminals. We recently introduced an order on that subject in the House, and in future, there will be a juxtaposed control at Gare du Nord, which will stop people buying a ticket to Calais, getting on the train and staying on it until they reach the United Kingdom, as some have been doing. We are pleased that the French Government have confirmed that they will introduce domestic legislation to ensure that all passengers will have to pass through juxtaposed controls regardless of whether their stated intention is to travel to the UK or to Calais. That will be a major change in French law, and it is a good illustration of the co-operation that exists.
This is an important debate. The legislation that we have passed, especially on the civil penalty, enables us to clamp down on the trading and smuggling of people.

We are using the increased resources that we have given to the immigration service to disrupt criminal gangs. We are also reducing the backlog of cases. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe did not mention the backlog of undecided cases that had been left to us. One of the key factors in encouraging people to make unfounded applications is a system that is mired in delay. We are determined to eradicate that delay. Last year, a record number of decisions, 110,000, were made by the immigration and nationality directorate, and I am grateful to all the staff who have given so much of their time and dedicated effort.
This has been an interesting debate, which has taken place at an earlier hour than most Adjournment debates. It has exposed several issues, but the key point is that the Government are determined to deter those who would make unfounded applications, but will continue to offer sanctuary to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution.

Question put and greed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Six o'clock.